CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResilienceNuclear Issues and Defense

Classifying global catastrophic risks

Open access
Avin, Shahar, Wintle, Bonnie C., Weitzdörfer, Julius, Ó hÉigeartaigh, Seán S., Sutherland, William J., Rees, Martin J.·2018·Futures
DOI 10.1016/j.futures.2018.02.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a novel classification framework for severe global catastrophic risk scenarios. Extending beyond existing work that identifies individual risk scenarios, we propose analysing global catastrophic risks along three dimensions: the critical systems affected, global spread mechanisms, and prevention and mitigation failures. The classification highlights areas of convergence between risk scenarios, which supports prioritisation of particular research and of policy interventions. It also points to potential knowledge gaps regarding catastrophic risks, and provides an interdisciplinary structure for mapping and tracking the multitude of factors that could contribute to global catastrophic risks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.futures.2018.02.001

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A risk is composed of hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposure, not just individual threats.

    “Second, a risk is composed of hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposure, not just individual threats (IPCC, 2012; Avin et al., 2018; Currie and Ó hÉigeartaigh, 2018; Liu et al., 2018).”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Avin et al., 2018

    The Abstract says the framework goes beyond individual risk scenarios, supporting the claim that risk is not just a matter of individual threats. But it names critical systems affected, global spread mechanisms, and prevention and mitigation failures as its three dimensions—not hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Alternative frameworks for classifying global catastrophic risks have yet to be widely adopted.

    “While there have been some alternative frameworks for classifying GCRs (Avin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Baum and Barrett, 2019), these have yet to be widely adopted.”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Avin et al., 2018

    The Abstract identifies this paper as proposing a framework for classifying global catastrophic risks, supporting its citation as an example of an alternative framework. Neither the Abstract nor §6, “Where to next?”, assesses whether such frameworks have been widely adopted; §6 discusses hoped-for future uses instead. The adoption claim is therefore not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. In S. D. Baum, & B. E. Tonn (Vol. Eds.), Futures: 72, (pp. 1-96).
  2. Coburn, A. W., Bowman, G., Ruffle, S. J., Foulser-Piggott, R., Ralph, D., & Tuveson, M. (2014). A taxonomy of threats for complex risk management. Cambridge risk framework series. Centre for Risk Studies, University of Cambridge.
  3. Wolfrum, R. (Ed.). (2017). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International LawOxford University Press.
  4. Zalta, E. N. (Ed.). (2016). Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyStanford University.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Avin, S., Wintle, B. C., Weitzdörfer, J., Ó hÉigeartaigh, S. S., Sutherland, W. J., & Rees, M. J.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Avin, Shahar
ORCID
Venue
Futures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
102
Pages
20-26
ISSN
0016-3287 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.futures.2018.02.001
OpenAlex
W2789287982
Cited by
116
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
21.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Futures (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Arcadia Fund
  • Templeton World Charity Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Nuclear Issues and Defense
Keywords
global catastrophic risk, risk classification, critical systems, risk prioritization, policy interventions, knowledge gaps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review