Cited by 59Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResilienceNuclear Issues and Defense

Governing Boring Apocalypses: A new typology of existential vulnerabilities and exposures for existential risk research

Liu, Hin-Yan, Lauta, Kristian Cedervall, Maas, Matthijs Michiel·2018·Futures

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.009

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, H.-Y., Lauta, K. C., & Maas, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Liu, Hin-Yan
Venue
Futures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
102
Pages
6-19
ISSN
0016-3287 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800447667
Cited by
59
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
14.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Futures (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risks
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
existential risk, social vulnerability, exposure, human extinction, technical systems, emergent risks, risk governance, risk policy, social resilience

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