Echoes of uncertainty: Reimagining complexity of global risks in the shadow of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the perception of global risks in Ukraine and Poland in the context of the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian conflict. Based on cross-sectional survey data, significant differences were found in how respondents from both countries perceive various threats. Ukrainians expressed higher levels of concern across all risk categories, particularly those directly related to the conflict, such as military operations and energy shortages. The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) revealed three distinct factors in Ukraine, indicating a diversified perception of risks, while in Poland, a single factor was identified, suggesting an integrated understanding of threats. These structures can be interpreted through the lens of polycrisis in Ukraine, where different dimensions of risks are seen as interconnected, and metacrisis in Poland, where various risks are viewed as manifestations of a single, overarching crisis structure. The study underscores how geopolitical contexts can shape societal perceptions of threats. It also suggests that the concepts of polycrisis and metacrisis are not only useful theoretical tools for explaining the complexity of contemporary global challenges but also practical frameworks through which individuals reflexively interpret and engage with global risks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".