MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399527888 · doi:10.1111/disa.12641

Post‐tropical cyclone Fiona and Atlantic Canada: Media framing of hazard risk in the Anthropocene

2024· article· en· W4399527888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam M. Straub

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Climate changeNewspaperPoliticsContext (archaeology)News mediaTropical cyclonePolitical scienceSociologyHistoryGeographyLawMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-tropical cyclone Fiona made landfall in Nova Scotia, Canada, in September 2022 with the force of a Category 2 hurricane. Using 'risk society' as an analytical framework, and Thomas A. Birkland's 'focusing event' concept, this paper seeks to understand how publics construct risk in the context of climate change and how institutions engage with those narratives. A qualitative content analysis of 439 newspaper articles from across Canada reveals that most media provide a superficial description of hazard impacts. When media are critical, they connect Fiona to climate change, other extreme events, social vulnerability, and systemic inequality. In response to Fiona and industry trends, insurance representatives indicate a withdraw from covering low-probability, high-consequence events owing to ambiguity in risk analysis and financial interests, complicating hazard relief. Political actors' rhetoric is strong-delivering relief in unprecedented ways and offering new adaptive policy. However, a history of unfulfilled political promises to act on climate change elicits scepticism from media sources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisastersSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207