MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252218333 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814662

Risk Analysis and Society

2003· book· en· W4252218333 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy L. McDaniels, Dale Hattis, Lorenz R. Rhomberg, Vicki M. Bier, Mary R. English, Alison C. Cullen, Robin Gregory, John D. Graham, Ortwin Renn, Joyce Tait, Michinori Kabuto, Rae Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk governanceCorporate governanceRisk managementValuation (finance)Risk assessmentPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsBusinessEngineeringEconomicsManagementAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 2004 book views risk analysis as one important basis for informed debate, policy decisions and governance regarding risk issues within societies. Its twelve chapters provide interdisciplinary insights about the fundamental issues in risk analysis for the beginning of a new century. The chapter authors are some of the leading researchers in the broad fields that provide the basis for the risk analysis, including the social, natural, medical, engineering and physical sciences. They address a wide range of issues, including: new perspectives on uncertainty and variability analysis, exposure analysis and the role of precaution, environmental risk and justice, risk valuation and citizen involvement, extreme events, the role of efficiency in risk management, and the assessment and governance of transboundary and global risks. The book will be used as a starting point for discussions at the 2003 First World Congress on Risk, to be held in Brussels.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207