MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410241181 · doi:10.1080/02697459.2025.2499682

The state of hazard risk communication in Canada: a municipal perspective

2025· article· en· W4410241181 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Practice and Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Land Institute, University of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)HazardState (computer science)Risk communicationEnvironmental planningBusinessPolitical sciencePublic administrationRisk analysis (engineering)GeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective disaster risk communication remains a key challenge for Canadian municipalities striving for resilience and risk reduction. This paper examines eight case studies across five provinces to explore local risk communication strategies and framings. It identifies three main approaches: place-based, community-based, and privately driven. Risk is predominantly framed in biophysical and objective terms, though larger municipalities are adopting more community-centered strategies. Municipal size, disaster experience, and local priorities shape communication practices. Shifts in public engagement models present both capacity challenges and opportunities for municipalities to collaborate and learn from one another in addressing disaster risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.400 · 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