MétaCan
← all works

Understanding the dynamic nature of risk in climate change assessments—A new starting point for discussion

2020· article· en· 57 citations· W3004264277 on OpenAlex· 10.1002/asl.958

Why is this work in the frame?

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

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

1 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8T2
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: low

Critique of the risk framework the IPCC uses in climate assessments, calling for standardization of the methods used to quantify risk; borderline between assessment methodology and domain climate-risk theory.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It develops a conceptual framework for climate risk rather than studying research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Conceptual paper on IPCC climate-risk frameworks, not metaresearch on how research is done or evaluated.

Abstract

Abstract This article sets out the current conceptualisation and description of risk used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It identifies limitations in capacity to reflect the dynamic nature of risk components, and the need for standardisation and refinement of methods used to quantify evolving risk patterns. Recent studies highlight the changing nature of hazards, exposure and vulnerability, the three components of risk, and demonstrate the need for coordinated guidance on strategies and methods that better reflect the dynamic nature of the components themselves, and their interaction. Here, we discuss limitations of a static risk framework and call for a way forward that will allow for a better understanding and description of risk. Such advancements in conceptualisation are needed to bring closer the understanding and description of risk in theory with how risk is quantified and communicated in practice. To stimulate discussion, this article proposes a formulation of risk that clearly recognises the temporally evolving nature of risk components.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
Atmospheric Science Letters
Topic
Climate change impacts on agriculture
Field
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutions
University of Regina
Funders
Keywords
Risk analysis (engineering)Vulnerability (computing)Climate changeRisk assessmentComputer scienceRisk managementPoint (geometry)BusinessEcologyComputer securityMathematics
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes