MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754622395 · doi:10.5055/jem.2017.0331

Defining a risk-informed framework for whole-of-government lessons learned: A Canadian perspective

2017· article· en· W2754622395 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emergency Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsCommunications Security EstablishmentDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceProcess managementPreparednessProcess (computing)Emergency managementKnowledge managementGovernment (linguistics)Computer scienceBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lessons learned play an important role in emergency management (EM) and organizational agility. Virtually all aspects of EM can derive benefit from a lessons learned program. From major security events to exercises, exploiting and applying lessons learned and "best practices" is critical to organizational resilience and adaptiveness. A robust lessons learned process and methodology provides an evidence base with which to inform decisions, guide plans, strengthen mitigation strategies, and assist in developing tools for operations. The Canadian Safety and Security Program recently supported a project to define a comprehensive framework that would allow public safety and security partners to regularly share event response best practices, and prioritize recommendations originating from after action reviews. This framework consists of several inter-locking elements: a comprehensive literature review/environmental scan of international programs; a survey to collect data from end users and management; the development of a taxonomy for organizing and structuring information; a risk-informed methodology for selecting, prioritizing, and following through on recommendations; and standardized templates and tools for tracking recommendations and ensuring implementation. This article discusses the efforts of the project team, which provided "best practice" advice and analytical support to ensure that a systematic approach to lessons learned was taken by the federal community to improve prevention, preparedness, and response activities. It posits an approach by which one might design a systematic process for information sharing and event response coordination-an approach that will assist federal departments to institutionalize a cross-government lessons learned program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it