Exploring the Colgate Model: A Case Study of the Role of Crisis and Risk Communication in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study of a return to in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic at a residential, liberal arts university examines the role communication played to facilitate the safety of students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community. The study uses a grounded-theory approach to frame the communication situation, and a thematic analysis to highlight the dynamics of risk and crisis message development in the case. Results indicate that messaging was developed through engagement activities in a two-stage process, moving from an informative, two-way engagement stage to a branded, strategic stage that resulted in almost universal success, measured in low infection rates, in the messaging campaign. How did they do it? This article explores that question and, based on this case, concludes that the role of crisis and risk communication is to enable this two-stage process of message development. The article contributes to mental model and situational crisis communication theory by revealing the interplay of the two theoretical approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".