Early Warnings, No Actions: A Practice Perspective on Barriers to Anticipatory Action Approaches
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Within the manifold approaches of climate adaptation efforts and resilience building, anticipatory action (AA) presents a promising, novel approach that emphasizes acting before a disaster strikes, shifting from reactive crisis response to proactive preparedness. Taking a management and coordination perspective, this paper analyzes challenges to the successful implementation of AA. Drawing on interviews, focus group discussions, meetings and observations with local communities, AA practitioners, local governments and the implementing humanitarian agency in flood‐prone regions of Nigeria, this paper identifies five key barriers to AA. These barriers include conflicting timeframes between actors, tensions between short‐term feasibility and long‐term needs, competing priorities between anticipatory and reactive approaches, structural challenges in integrating AA into existing systems, and trade‐offs related to the reliability and credibility of forecasting data. The findings show that these barriers are not isolated or stable, but co‐enacted through interrelated practices of multiple actors involved in implementing AA. Adopting a practice perspective on barriers reveals how misalignments in temporalities, priorities, structures, and scales are co‐constructed, helping to explain their persistence. We argue that addressing these challenges requires a shift from technical fixes of AA toward a systemic perspective that understands AA as a dynamic and complex governance challenge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it