Does Wildfire Exposure Influence Corporate Disaster Preparedness? A Study of Natural Resources Extraction Firms in Canada
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
Managers must make critical disaster preparation decisions to protect firm assets from the threat of wildfire activity. Prior literature stresses the importance of past disaster experience as a key driver of disaster preparation. The article finds that, while experience with disasters is a critical condition, it is insufficient to explain disaster preparation activities by firms. Managerial perceptions including belief in anthropogenic climate change and the perception of increasing wildfires can substitute for direct negative wildfire experience. The article builds configural theory to explain how the psychological “closeness” of wildfire hazards can influence managerial decisions to prepare for disasters in the presence of key organizational characteristics. This study adopts a qualitative comparative analytical approach, drawing on manager surveys and biophysical wildfire data from 20 Canadian mining and resource extraction sites. The article also contrasts manager perceptions of wildfire risk with those of experts and captures a gap in risk perception.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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