MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400018505 · doi:10.32388/debs1j

Successful Community Infrastructure Risk Management in a Decarbonized Future

2024· preprint· en· W4400018505 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander H Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueQeios · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRisk managementEnvironmental planningFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It remains uncertain how a decarbonized economy will function and how organizational roles will need to adapt. Irrespective, the climate is forcing a changing risk context, and organizations and communities are in transition, whether actively engaged or not. Managing the emergent risks is critical to a successful transition and community survival. However, it requires a system of systems view. The asset and function-based investment practice does not reflect value. Community transition is complex and persistent efforts to simply aspects in isolation and project familiar models based on no-longer-valid assumptions that overcomplicate the calculus. Successful risk management of community transition to a decarbonized future requires a shared understanding of the outcome across all stakeholders to build a sense of ownership and partnership. Each step in that transition must follow a risk-sequenced progression that is measurable and transparent, ideally independently validated. Community transition risk management relies on social capital and delivers enhanced economic benefits. This article advocates an infrastructure system planning approach instead of an asset-based one.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQeiosSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207