Crisis? What Crisis? The Contestation of Urgency in Creeping Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whilst research on extreme contexts has mainly studied responses to and perceptions of urgency in abrupt crisis settings, this paper examines the construction and contestation of urgency in ambiguous creeping crisis settings. It builds on the empirical case of the Alpine Region of Tyrol and the discourse that emerged around the climate crisis and ski tourism. By taking an abductive approach, we investigate how the temporal dynamics of urgency contestation unfold between different actors. Our findings show three discursive dynamics that drive the contestation of urgency over extended periods of time. We further reveal that actors draw on specific temporal dimensions when constructing high or low senses of urgency – a measurable, normative or synchronicity dimension. This contributes first to research on urgency by uncovering that urgency is not something that can be taken for granted in crises, but instead a multidimensional and relationally contested construct. Second, we point to the nestedness of crises by showing that the urgency of a crisis is shaped by the perception of urgency in related crises. Third, we contribute to crisis research outlining that creeping crises do not necessarily peak in a “hot phase” but instead remain contested and continue to creep on forever.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".