Risk model, with identified key risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deliverable D9.4 of the Nunataryuk project. This report presents first an overview of a theoretical risk framework, including a Compass Model and Methodological Flow Chart, developed to help facilitate the gathering of coastal risks in a systematic way, to make assessments and apply different tools and analysis to contribute to more effective risk management at the local level in Arctic coastal communities. The development of this framework is motivated by the fact that thawing permafrost creates risks to the environment, economy, and culture of affected Arctic coastal communities, and more effective identification of these risks and the inclusion of the societal context and co-production with local stakeholders can provide the basis for effective risk management, reduced risks, and a more sustainable future (Larsen et al. 2021). The risk framework and modelling was developed during the Nunataryuk project period and has provided the framework for identifying key risks from permafrost thaw in case study regions along the Arctic Coast; Ilulissat, West Greenland; Longyearbyen, Svalbard; Beaufort Sea Region, Yukon Coast and Mackenzie River Delta; and Northern Sakha (Yakutiya), Russia. We first demonstrate the use of the risk framework by presenting a generalized risk analysis that highlights five key hazards of permafrost thaw, as well as key physical processes/drivers that lead to physical, chemical and biological impacts that create five key hazards. Secondly, we present a risk diagram (which will appear in the Atlas of Permafrost in 2023), which shows the impacts of permafrost thaw along the Arctic coast. Next, we present local specific risk data from research conducted within the four case study areas, including results from a survey. A central element within the risk framework presented here is the notion of the dual dimensions of risk – the recognition of risk as both physical and socially constructed – and the importance of risk perceptions of permafrost affected Arctic communities, which facilitate the coproduction of knowledge. Overall, our case studies show that permafrost thaw in local communities along the Arctic coast has negative impacts for all of the central quality of life domains, with risks to infrastructure and built environment, economy and planning being particularly challenging and necessitating critical trade-offs for many local stakeholders, including from private and public sectors.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.052 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".