Public Perceptions of Resilience and Vulnerability Concepts for Adaptation
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
Resilience is everywhere in plans, policy, and academic literature on risk reduction and adaptation, and a common refrain of elected officials and disaster victims alike. Geographers have contributed much to the critical understanding of the theoretical foundations and implications of this now ubiquitous concept, and have made some initial steps in studying how local practitioners and other experts interpret and apply resilience in risk reduction and adaptation measures. But there is limited empirical research, however, on what the people living in communities exposed to hazards think about resilience. This study aims to address this gap by conducting in-person, researcher-administered surveys (n = 400) with members of the public using coastal and lakefront environmental amenities in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada. Survey results include three main findings: (1) the majority of participants prefer the framing of “increasing resilience” over “reducing vulnerability”; (2) the conceptualization of resilience as creative transformation is greatly favored over conceptualizations of resilience as resistance or recovery; and (3) resilience is seen as uneven in both study cities. The study reveals insights that can help inform and align resilience theory and practice in cities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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