Flood hazards, environmental rewards, and the social reproduction of risk
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People pursue the environmental rewards that come with proximity to water despite associated flood risks. Governments are complicit in this exposure to flood hazards and prevailing institutional arrangements support it, begging the question of why all these actors keep making decisions that serve to reproduce risk in a society that should know better. This paper seeks to address the question by broadening the ontology of social reproduction. It draws on three disparate “imaginaries” of risk—the production of risk, risk and the social contract, and risk at the intersection of capital and rule—to make conceptual links between the production of nature, capitalist production, and social reproduction. This approach is then applied to a study of flood risk on Toronto Island, Canada. Investigating how residents there interact with environmental amenities and acute flood hazards, and how those institutionally-supported interactions are shaped by the Indigenous, environmental, and recent histories of the island, calls for a broadened social reproduction theory to hold together the general and the particular in the contingent geographies of risk. It reveals that flood risk is socially reproduced by processes working in concert to facilitate powerful groups of people in their pursuit of environmental rewards while marginalizing others, exclude some groups of people from the social contract, and situate risk as an organizing point around which lopsided bets are made within the capitalist political economy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it