GRF · Research Nexus
Research Nexus
Institutional research dialogue, comparative learning and evidence interpretation without taking over the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) scientific publication authority. Research Nexus is an established platform of The Global Risks Forum.
- STEM methods
- 3
- Canonical methods this field applies
- Topics
- 8
- Subject pages in the field
- Counterparts
- 7
- Platforms in shared fields across the network
- Report series
- 2
- Reports series it contributes to
Research Nexus in seven parts.
- 01What the platform doesDialogue, comparison and peer learning, on the record
- 02FrameworksWhat the work is read against
- 03OverviewWhat Research Nexus does
- 04The problemEvidence about risk often fails on the way to the people who decide
- 05Foundation and counterpartsLinked to science at GCRI and to finance at GRA
- 06CoverageThe areas of research and evidence this platform takes on
Dialogue, comparison and peer learning, on the record.
Research Nexus works through research synthesis, comparative inquiry and institutional learning. Its signature outputs are designed to make dialogue reusable: anyone who did not attend should be able to see what was asked, what evidence was discussed, where participants agreed and disagreed, and which questions were passed back to researchers. Dialogue is planned so that no discipline, institution or region dominates, and records state who took part in what capacity.
Research dialogue records
Structured summaries of what was discussed, where participants agreed, where they did not and what remains open.
Methods seminars
Sessions where researchers compare methods, assumptions and limits across disciplines and institutions.
Peer learning briefs
Short accounts of how institutions in different countries use evidence, including what did not work.
Research Nexus does not take over GCRI’s authority for scientific publication. Reviewed scientific findings are published by GCRI through Reports.
Evidence synthesis workspace.
The screen a team would use to follow this field: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Evidence synthesis workspace
Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-99
- Records found3537
- Screened1204Active
- Included69Normal
- Reviewer agreement0.78kappaNormal
Systematic review
- QuestionPICO
- Protocolregistered
- Search3 databases
- Screentwo reviewers
- Extractform v2
- Appraisecertainty
- Briefpolicy owner
Certainty of evidence
| Reduced losses | 6 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 8 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 5 | Very low | Unclear |
The questions this field works on.
Risk research dialogue
Cross-disciplinary research themes.
TopicRisk knowledge translation
Making evidence useful to institutions.
TopicResearch integrity
Review, conflict and correction practices.
TopicCollaborative research
Institutional research communities.
TopicThe science-policy interface
Evidence and public decision responsibilities.
TopicResearch methods dialogue
Comparative methods and limitations.
TopicGlobal research networks
Authorised international collaborations.
TopicInstitutional knowledge gaps
Research agenda and unresolved questions.
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page’s map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Research Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Research Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Data and Evidence in Standards
- Published in Research Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Risk Science and Methods in Academy
What the work is read against.
The platform does not set standards. It reads its evidence against the frameworks that competent bodies have adopted, so a finding can be placed where a decision-maker already works.
| Framework or standard | Body | What it sets |
|---|---|---|
| UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science | UNESCO | A shared definition, values and principles of open science, with actions for member states on open access, open data, infrastructure and engagement |
| UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers | UNESCO | Rights and responsibilities of researchers, academic freedom, and the obligations of states toward the research system |
| Frascati Manual | OECD | Definitions and survey guidance for measuring research and experimental development expenditure and personnel |
| Singapore Statement on Research Integrity | World Conference on Research Integrity | Principles and responsibilities for honesty, accountability, professional courtesy and good stewardship in research |
| European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity | ALLEA | Good research practices and the handling of violations, used by funders and institutions across Europe |
| San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) | DORA and its signatories | Recommendations to assess research on its own merits rather than on journal-based metrics |
| Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research | Ministers of the European Research Area | Commitments by governments to protect freedom of scientific research and its core values |
| Science advice principles and practice guidance | International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA) | Practice guidance for advisers and advisory bodies on independence, transparency, uncertainty and engagement |
| FAIR Guiding Principles | FORCE11 and the GO FAIR community | Findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of research data and metadata |
| OECD Global Science Forum reports | OECD | Policy analysis on science advice, research integrity, research security, infrastructures and international cooperation |
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Research Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Research Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Data and Evidence in Standards
- Published in Research Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Risk Science and Methods in Academy
What Research Nexus does.
Research governance is the set of rules, institutions and practices that decide how research is commissioned, reviewed, shared, corrected and used. Research Nexus, Global Risks Forum’s platform for it, covers research integrity, science advice, knowledge translation, collaboration agreements and research agendas for risk. Its pages describe governance practice; scientific findings remain with authors, journals and GCRI.
Its community
Policy scholars; social scientists; international researchers; evidence reviewers.
Its methods
Research synthesis; comparative inquiry; institutional learning.
Its outputs
Research dialogue records; methods seminars; peer learning briefs.
How Research Nexus is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Who holds which role
The actors around Research Nexus: who decides, who implements, who finances and who brings knowledge and voice.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on Research Nexus are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
Evidence about risk often fails on the way to the people who decide.
Research on systemic risk is abundant and growing, but it reaches decision-makers unevenly. Studies use different definitions and methods, answer questions that institutions did not ask and arrive after decisions are made. Institutions, in turn, struggle to say what they need to know and to judge competing claims.
The difficulty is partly structural. Academic incentives reward novelty and publication; institutional incentives reward timely, actionable answers. Disciplines describe the same phenomenon in incompatible terms, so an economist, an engineer and an epidemiologist can study one cascade without being able to combine their findings. Evidence produced in a few well-funded countries is applied in very different contexts, and local knowledge rarely flows back.
There is also a question of interpretation. The same evidence can support different conclusions depending on values, risk tolerance and the decision at hand. When interpretation happens behind closed doors, or when advocates present uncertain findings as settled, trust in evidence erodes. Research on the science-policy interface consistently finds that structured, transparent dialogue between researchers and institutions improves both the relevance of research and the quality of its use.
Comparative learning adds a further layer. Countries and institutions facing similar risks have built very different arrangements for commissioning research, using scientific advice and correcting course. Some of those arrangements have been tested by crises and some have not. Seeing how others work, including what failed, is often the fastest way for an institution to improve its own practice.
Research Nexus exists to host that dialogue. It does not produce or certify science. It brings researchers and institutions together, compares how different systems learn, records what was discussed and agreed, and feeds unresolved questions back to those who can research them.
Why now: new science-policy bodies are starting work, including the UN scientific panels on artificial intelligence and on chemicals, waste and pollution established in 2025, while public institutions face contested evidence on heat, health and technology. Research Nexus convenes researchers and decision holders in recorded dialogues; with participants’ consent, its records can inform the Evidence Brief series of Reports, and recurring gaps in how evidence is described can be filed as change proposals to the Nexus Standards.
Linked to science at GCRI and to finance at GRA.
The platform’s STEM foundation is policy, institutional and decision science, probability and statistics and causal inference and impact evaluation: the methods needed to judge what evidence shows and what it does not.
At GCRI, Reports publishes reviewed science, Labs runs research, Registry keeps records and Systems Science and Modelling develops models. At Global Risks Alliance (GRA), Financial Regulations Nexus builds shared industry understanding of regulatory evidence. Research Nexus contributes to the Evidence Brief and Universe Annual Synthesis series. See all counterparts.
The areas of research and evidence this platform takes on.
Research Nexus is Global Risks Forum’s platform for institutional dialogue about research on risk: how evidence is commissioned, reviewed, corrected, shared across borders and taken up by public institutions. Its pages set out the governance of research rather than its results: the mandates, agreements, integrity practices and science-policy arrangements that decide whether evidence can be trusted and used. Scientific publication remains with GCRI and with authors, journals and institutions under their own review.
Cross-disciplinary research dialogue
Structured exchange between disciplines and institutions on shared risk questions, with records of what was agreed and what remains contested.
Knowledge translation
How evidence is synthesised, briefed and made usable for institutions, and where translation distorts or loses uncertainty.
Research integrity
Peer review, conflicts of interest, misconduct procedures, correction and retraction as the system that keeps the record reliable.
Collaborative research
Consortia, institutional partnerships and research communities: their agreements, authorship rules, data sharing and governance.
Science-policy interface
Science advice, assessment bodies and the division of responsibility between those who supply evidence and those who decide.
Methods and comparability
Comparative research designs, their assumptions and limits, and how evidence from different designs is weighed together.
International research networks
Authorised cross-border collaboration, research security, science diplomacy and equitable partnership terms.
Knowledge gaps and research agendas
Unresolved questions, research priority setting and the institutional reasons some risks remain under-studied.
Built on named science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Every claim on Research Nexus rests on methods with a canonical page in the STEM Commons, so readers can see what a finding depends on and where its limits lie.
How work moves in this field.
A question becomes evidence, a governed build, an organised community, a controlled test, a reviewed publication and, finally, a decision taken by the competent authority under its own rules.
- Question Universe National, regional or institutional priority. Question in Research Nexus
- Evidence Foundry STEM foundation of the platform. Evidence in Research Nexus
- Build Foundry Foundry. Build in Research Nexus
- Organise Universe Nexus ecosystem. Organise in Research Nexus
- Test Universe Universe (independent site). Test in Research Nexus
- Publish Reports Reports. Publish in Research Nexus
- Decide Competent authority Competent authorities and institutions, through NXS-RLS (participants, agreements and handoffs). Decide in Research Nexus
- Renew Universe Corrections and the next annual agenda. Renew in Research Nexus
Each step of the cycle in the pillar it runs in; the decision stays with the competent authority, outside the programme.
- Labs
- Foundry
- Universe
- Nexus Standards
- Reports
- Risk Academy
- Competent authority (outside the programme)
How this works across the six pillars.
Research Nexus works through six pillars of one annual programme, led by the Nexus Consortium, with GCRI, GRF and GRA each contributing in its role: explore, experiment and prototype in Labs, build, simulate and prepare in Foundry, convene and test in Universe, codify, correct and apply in Nexus Standards, publish in every format in Reports, teach in the open in Risk Academy.
Programme yearAll phases
Route
The whole programme
Every pillar hands its work to another; together they close the year’s feedback loops.
L · F · U · S · R · A
- Pillars
- 6 of 6
- Handoffs
- 18 of 18
- Loops
- 17 closed
Handoffs in play
- F01Universe → Foundry · Admitted mission becomes a cycle project with a decision caseReadiness preparation
- F02Foundry → Universe · Core Build Report and go or no-go evidenceControlled build
- F03Foundry → Reports · Sealed observations and indicator series behind a profileCloseout
- F04Universe → Reports · After-action and scenario findings for chapters 10 and 13After-action review
and 14 more
- LabsWhere questions become experiments and prototypes: new methods, data and tools are tried in the open, with their limits on record, before the Foundry builds them, under the Nexus Consortium.Labs
- FoundryWhere the evidence behind a mandate or commitment is built, with its owner and limits on record.Research Nexus in FoundryFoundry
- UniverseWhere mandates become missions: GRF records each gate, convenes the parties and keeps implementation accountable.Research Nexus in Universeuniverse.nexus
- Nexus StandardsWhere shared rules are agreed in the open; each jurisdiction decides adoption, and no global body holds a veto.Data and Evidence in Standardsnexustandards.com
- ReportsWhere governance analysis and the year’s results are published, so commitments can be followed and checked.Research Nexus in ReportsReports
- Risk AcademyWhere policymakers, diplomats and agency staff learn the programme roles and decision-making on the record, on Risk Academy.Faculty of Risk Science and Methods in Academyrisksacademy.com
The same field, seen three ways.
GCRI studies a field as science, GRF governs it and GRA builds shared financial understanding of it. Research Nexus links to its counterparts so that work on one side is visible on the others.
- RegistryInstitutionGCRIShared fieldGovernance and institutions, Research and evidence
- LabsInstitutionGCRIShared fieldResearch and evidence
- AgencyInstitutionGCRIShared fieldGovernance and institutions
- ReportsInstitutionGCRIShared fieldResearch and evidence
- Financial Regulation NexusInstitutionGRAShared fieldGovernance and institutions
- Financial Crime and Fraud RiskInstitutionGRAShared fieldGovernance and institutions
- Systems Science and ModellingInstitutionGCRIShared fieldResearch and evidence
Pages in Research Nexus.
Mandate, publisher and status
PageDiscipline and institutional issues
PageResearch and institutional knowledge
PageProfessional practice
PageDialogues and cooperation
PageProgrammes and projects
PageAnnual programme contribution
PageSpecialist and institutional community
PageLeadership and skills
PageConvenings and dialogues
PagePublished findings
PageParticipate
PageInstitutional contact
PageTransparency, rights and safeguards
PageSTEM foundation of Research Nexus
PageHow work moves in this field
PageBuild in Foundry
PageTest in Universe
PagePublish in Reports
PageThe same field across the Consortium
PageTopics
Where this page leads across the Consortium.
Questions and answers.
Who publishes Research Nexus?
Is Research Nexus active?
How can I contribute?
Where are findings published?
Which values on this platform are real?
How do I report an error?
Does Research Nexus publish scientific findings?
Who can take part in a research dialogue?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
How Research Nexus works.
Choose a view and press Play to follow the platform’s process, its programme year, the standards it applies and how its findings are published. The outline shows how the work is designed to run, not the status of any decision.
Research Nexus
How Research Nexus works
Platforms · Programme year · Standards · Reports
A platform joins a field to named methods, labelled evidence and the outputs it publishes, without becoming the authority it serves.
01 Scope
- 01Field and familiesStart · The platform leadThe home states the field, its families and who it serves.
- 02Topic dossiersRecord · Platform authorsTopics explain the subject with labelled evidence.
02 Evidence
- 03Evidence labelsRecord · GCRIEach value is labelled: observed, published statistics, estimated, modelled, scenario or unknown.
- 04MethodsStep · Method ownersMethods come from the STEM Commons, each with one canonical page.
03 Work
- 05Scenarios on the systemsModel · Foundry pillarScenarios run on the Nexus systems, labelled as scenario.
- 06Standards that applyRecord · Nexus StandardsThe platform names the standards that apply. A validator report is evidence for review.
04 Publish
- 07EditionsRecord · ReportsFindings are published through Reports with their limits.
- 08Authority decidesOutcome · The competent authorityDecisions and execution stay with the government, operator or licensed institution.
Research Nexus home · Platforms · Shared methodsAn outline of how the work is designed to run; it does not report the status of any decision or record.
Take part in Research Nexus.
Start from who you are. Answer an open call. Or form and lead a competence cell on the Research Nexus platform.
National institutions
Ministries, statistics offices and agencies: a national desk and chapter, and a seat in the working groups. National chapters
Sectors and professions
Operators, regulators, banks, insurers and professional bodies whose work touches Research Nexus. Participate
Learning
Courses and practice, with a record of every course completed. Free to study. Open learning
Standards
Draft, review and adopt the methods and data standards with the working groups. Working groups
Communities and research
Universities, civil society and individual experts: projects, data and review. Write to the team
| Open call | Seeks | Closes |
|---|---|---|
| Founding call for experts to the working groups CALL-FOUNDING-EXPERTS | expert, editor, chair | 2026-12-15 |
| Open nomination for the three independent expert seats of the Global Standards Council CALL-GSC-IND | council-member | 2026-12-01 |
| Nominations of interim regional members (applies only if the transitional provision is decided) CALL-GSC-REG | council-member | 2026-12-15 |
| Review of the wave-1 risk core outlines (C1, C2, C3, C4, C8, C10, C11) CALL-REVIEW-WAVE1 | contributor | 2027-01-31 |
| Experts for the core standards of risk science: uncertainty and evidence grading, scales, structured expert judgement, tolerability, extremes and compound events, catastrophic and existential risk, ethics and equity, units and measurement (NRS-C17 to NRS-C24) CALL-CORE-SCIENCE | expert, editor, chair | 2027-01-31 |
| Independent reviewers for the families of the hazard atlas, three from at least two regions for each family (NHS2-R19), priority families first CALL-ATLAS-REVIEW | expert | 2027-03-31 |
| Members of the interim Frontier Safety Review Panel and red-team reviewers (biosafety and biosecurity, AI safety and security, critical-infrastructure security); applications treated in confidence CALL-FRONTIER-SAFETY-REVIEW | expert | 2026-11-30 |
| Experts in ontology, metrology, software verification and conformity assessment for the requirement register, the NHS-2 machine representation, the conformance test suites and the conformity assessment scheme CALL-CONFORMANCE-ONTOLOGY | expert, editor | 2027-01-31 |
Calls past their closing date are hidden automatically. Every call, proposal and route: open areas and calls.
Gather the cell
Bring together three to seven people with complementary skills: data, field practice, policy and communication.
Register it
Write to the team with the cell’s name, members, area and region. You receive a reference and a contact. Write to the team
Choose a charter
Pick one focus: research and evidence, data and maps, standards review, or community preparedness.
Learn together
Follow shared study paths at Risk Academy, with practice and a record of every course completed. Hazards and resilience
Lead and report
Hold regular sessions. Publish what the cell learns through Reports. Bring findings to the working groups. Working groups
What a national team or a local community can do on The Global Risks Index (NXS-GRX) today.
Your country’s profile
Open risk profiles for 195 countries, with sources and licences on every value. Open the Index
Correct or reply
Correct a value or reply for your country. The change is logged with its effect. Open the Index
Offer data
Offer a dataset. It enters through the licence gate, with your credit. Open the Index
Every figure on this page is indexed: hazards, climate, conflict, the world.
The Index is the Consortium’s indexing system for risk data. Every indicator, hazard, series and country profile carries its Nexus Standards identifier, its source and its licence, so what this page shows can be traced, corrected and reused.
- 01 · Sources205 registered sourcesEvery value keeps its source and licence; withheld values are counted.Data and licences
- 02 · Nexus StandardsNIS-1 and NHS-1451 indicators, 905 hazards; every record carries a UNI.Nexus Standards
- 03 · The Index54 series, 195 country profilesComputed on the standards; no value is published until an edition is released.The Global Risks Index
- 04 · This pageResearch NexusMaps, figures and feeds read the Index in the context of hazards, climate, conflict.Public API
Series in this context hazards, climate, conflict
- GLBGlobal SystemsThe state of interdependent global risk: the twenty domain indices aggregated to the world, the five core systems (water, energy, food, health, biodiversity) and their couplings, the global tail register and the gap…NXS-GRX-AR-000002Hazards · Climate · Conflict
- THDisaster Risk Intelligence (DRI)Signals, observations, event streams, geospatial layers and scenario packs turned into structured risk intelligence for preparedness and planning.NXS-GRX-AR-000111Hazards · Climate · Conflict
- GSGlobal CitiesUrban exposure, heat, flooding, informal settlement, service dependency and the economic weight of cities at risk.NXS-GRX-AR-000068Hazards · Infrastructure · Climate
- GSGlobal ClimateChronic and acute physical climate hazard, transition exposure, adaptation gaps and scenario pathways to 2030, 2050 and 2100.NXS-GRX-AR-000065Climate · Hazards · Finance
Country profiles the world
Every country profile carries the source and licence of each value. Correct a value or reply
Hazard domains NHS-1
- Atmosphere and weatherNXS-GRX-AR-000135
- Solid EarthNXS-GRX-AR-000138
- Systemic and compound eventsNXS-GRX-AR-000148
Geodata and API open
Open layers on an equal-area hexagon grid, shown as densities per km² or as symbols: People · GHSL 2025People · WorldPop 2025Built-up areaPortsAirportsRoadsRailwaysRivers and lake centrelines
/api/v1/public/grix · https://nexustandards.com/uni/{uni}
Developers · Data · Made with Natural Earth, Public domain; GHSL and WorldPop, CC BY 4.0
Snapshot of the Index registries pinned 2026-10-23 · 22c6eed. Research and risk-analytics information: not a rating, an official classification, a warning, a benchmark or advice.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.