The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Institutional dialogues in research Nexus: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
Question framing with policy… · Day 4 of 5 · Controlled · observed
| Panel chair | 3 | 59 | Active |
| Policy liaison | 5 | 48 | Delayed |
| Review editor | 3 | 39 | Active |
| Research network coordinator | 5 | 57 | Delayed |
Research Nexus · Exercise controlExercise control, in outline: domain structure with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record.
Research Nexus dialogues are structured conversations in which those who govern research and evidence as well as governance and institutions compare evidence and options on a question with an accountable owner. Each runs under agreed attribution rules, often the Chatham House Rule, and its outcome note is published with participants' consent. A dialogue is listed only once it is confirmed.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to dialogues@globalriskforum.com.
A research dialogue on Research Nexus asks a narrow question: what does the evidence on a shared risk support, and what would a decision holder need that research does not yet provide? Researchers bring confidence statements and their limits; officials bring the decision and its deadline. The friction between those two clocks is the subject.
| Format | Use | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence round-table | Researchers present competing readings of the same evidence to officials | Summary of agreements, disagreements and open questions |
| Knowledge-gap workshop | Officials list what they could not find; researchers say whether it is answerable | A prioritised list of research questions with proposed owners |
| Expert elicitation session | Structured judgement where data is thin, following protocols such as IDEA or the Sheffield method | Elicited ranges with the protocol and participant expertise stated |
Questions that emerge are passed to GCRI as research requests, or to universities through the research and universities council. The science-policy interface topic describes the institutions on each side.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Chatham House Rule | A rule under which participants may use information received but may not reveal the identity or affiliation of speakers. |
| Science-policy interface | The arrangements through which scientific evidence reaches public decisions, including advisory committees, chief scientific advisers, academies and intergovernmental assessments. |
| Track two dialogue | Informal dialogue among non-official participants, such as experts, that can explore options officials cannot. |
| Deliberative forum | A structured process in which participants weigh evidence and arguments together before reaching a view, the approach the OECD describes for representative deliberative processes. |
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. 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.