Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk management decisions in public health require consideration of a number of complex, often conflicting factors. The aim of this review was to propose a set of 10 fundamental principles to guide risk decision-making. Although each of these principles is sound in its own right, the guidance provided by different principles might lead the decision-maker in different directions. For example, where the precautionary principle advocates for preemptive risk management action under situations of scientific uncertainty and potentially catastrophic consequences, the principle of risk-based decision-making encourages decision-makers to focus on established and modifiable risks, where a return on the investment in risk management is all but guaranteed in the near term. To evaluate the applicability of the 10 principles in practice, one needs to consider 10 diverse risk issues of broad concern and explore which of these principles are most appropriate in different contexts. The 10 principles presented here afford substantive insight into the process of risk management decision-making, although decision-makers will ultimately need to exercise judgment in reaching appropriate risk decisions, accounting for all of the scientific and extra-scientific factors relevant to the risk decision at hand.
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 | 0.076 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".