The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)
GCRI · Labs
Interdisciplinary experiments, technical research, methods and supervised innovation challenge programmes. Labs is an established platform of The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation.
Labs is designed to give interdisciplinary teams a common way of planning, running and recording experiments, so that the result, the method and the uncertainty travel together.
Pre-specified questions, controls, acceptance criteria and analysis plans, recorded before data are examined. See research protocols.
Laboratory, simulation and field settings with documented safety cases and site permissions. See field and lab testbeds.
Reproducibility records, corrections and negative results kept on the same footing as positive findings. See reproducibility and negative results.
Supervised innovation challenge programmes are designed to run on the same protocols, with named supervisors and written terms for every participant.
The screen a team would use to follow this field: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Labs · Quarter 4
| PR-309 sensor drift | Field experiment | Yes | Approved | Running |
| PR-017 AI triage | Randomised | Yes | Conditions | Setup |
| PR-975 message recall | Survey experiment | Yes | Approved | Complete |
| PR-870 heat exposure | Cohort | No | Pending | Draft |
Hypotheses, controls and scientific acceptance.
TopicTest environments, safety and site permissions.
TopicModel evaluation and scientific assistance.
TopicWorkforce and institutional change research.
TopicInformation ecosystems and responsible media innovation.
TopicWater, energy and technical transitions.
TopicHuman health, One Health and biotech.
TopicFailure records and corrections.
Two stocks, pressure and adaptive capacity, joined by a reinforcing growth loop, a delayed balancing response and damage when pressure outruns capacity; past the threshold the system can tip. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
Controls
Readouts
| Year | Pressure | Capacity | Perceived |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 20.0 |
| 4 | 23.3 | 44.9 | 21.2 |
| 8 | 27.2 | 42.2 | 24.0 |
| 12 | 31.7 | 42.3 | 27.7 |
| 16 | 36.8 | 45.5 | 32.2 |
| 20 | 42.3 | 51.5 | 37.2 |
| 24 | 47.9 | 60.3 | 42.6 |
| 28 | 53.2 | 71.3 | 48.0 |
| 32 | 57.8 | 84.3 | 53.1 |
| 36 | 66.4 | 98.4 | 58.4 |
| 40 | 82.7 | 115.9 | 69.7 |
| 44 | 97.8 | 139.7 | 83.8 |
| 48 | 109.1 | 169.4 | 97.3 |
No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme's own evidence.
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
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.
Each step of the cycle in the pillar it runs in; the decision stays with the competent authority, outside the programme.
The model, its assumptions, its data and its uncertainty, in the form a scientist or engineer would check. Structures follow published methods. The values drawn are illustrative, not findings.
The model structure used for labs, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)hazard, exposure, vulnerability and coping capacityEAL = ∑k pk · Lkover events k with annual probability pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| Assumption | Why it is made | How it is tested |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard and exposure are independent within an event | Keeps the loss integral tractable | Compare with a copula fit on joint records |
| Couplings are linear near the operating point | Lets shocks propagate through A | Perturb beyond the linear range and compare |
| Vulnerability curves transfer between places | Local curves are rarely available | Validate against observed losses where they exist |
The data classes behind labs and what is recorded about each before it is used.
| Data class | Provenance recorded | Resolution stated | Licence checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satellite imagery, optical and radar | sensor, processing level, acquisition date | pixel size and revisit | per scene |
| Reanalysis and climate model output | model, experiment, member, version | grid and time step | per release |
| In-situ sensors and gauges | station, instrument, calibration record | point and sampling rate | per network |
| Population and asset exposure | method, vintage, input sources | cell size and unit | per release |
| Boundaries and reference geography | producer, edition, date | scale | per edition |
Research reproducibility is the ability to obtain consistent results when a study's data, code or methods are reused or repeated, and it is the test of whether research produces reliable knowledge. Labs studies where that fails, in protocols, testbeds, models, pilots and the publication record, across work, media, energy, water, health and biotechnology.
Research teams; universities; engineers; student teams; scientists.
Research protocols; reproducibility; experimental design; controlled testing.
Experimental protocols; reproducibility records; research findings.
Labs runs controlled research: pre-registered protocols, testbeds and pilots that check whether a method, tool or intervention does what is claimed under stated conditions. It publishes negative and null results. A Labs result describes what was tested and found; it is never a seal of approval, a procurement recommendation or evidence that something works elsewhere.
Experiments involving people follow the ethics review of the institutions involved and the Declaration of Helsinki where it applies. Illustrations of experiments on these pages are examples, not results.
Labs results are designed for the Labs Evidence series, with protocols registered before data collection. Datasets and code would carry identifiers and model cards under the proposed Nexus Standards. Readiness assessments that follow a Labs result go to the Foundry Build and Readiness series.
Most of the questions the Nexus Consortium works on are about coupled systems: a drought that lowers reservoir levels, cuts hydropower, raises food prices and strains clinics at the same time. No single discipline owns that chain, and no single dataset shows it. Understanding it needs experiments that cross disciplines, and those are the experiments most likely to go wrong quietly.
The failure modes are well documented across science. Hypotheses are written after the data are seen. Controls are weak or missing. A model is tuned until it matches the one dataset it was tested on. Field trials run without the permissions, safety cases or consent they needed. Negative results are not published, so the next team repeats the same dead end. In interdisciplinary work these problems compound: an ecologist may not know how a hydrological model was calibrated, and an engineer may not know which social survey weighted which population.
When such results feed decisions about infrastructure, health or public spending, a weak experiment does not stay in the laboratory. It is cited, reused in a model, placed in a briefing and acted on. A result that cannot be repeated becomes a hidden assumption inside systems that many people rely on. That is why the method matters as much as the finding.
Method topics cover research protocols, field and lab testbeds, AI and scientific workflows and reproducibility and negative results. These apply across every lab.
Thematic labs apply them to specific systems: the Future of Energy and Water Labs examine resource transitions and their technical constraints; the Future of Health and Bio Labs examine human health, One Health and biotechnology questions under biosafety rules; the Future of Work Lab studies how work, skills and institutions change; and the Future of Media Lab studies information ecosystems and responsible media innovation.
The platform's working pages set out the protocol library, the testbed register, experiment records and published results. Each shows records as they are released and none shows a record that does not exist.
Labs studies how research and innovation produce reliable knowledge and where they fail: in protocols, testbeds, models, pilots and the publication record. Its pages cover research design, reproducibility, technology readiness and responsible innovation across work, media, energy, water, health and biotechnology. Each page sets out mechanisms, measures, sources, methods and the bodies that decide, with every indicator labelled by its evidence and no results stated.
Hypotheses, controls, sample size, preregistration and the reporting standards that decide what a study can claim.
Replication, computational reproducibility, negative results, retractions and how the scientific record corrects itself.
Test environments, field trials, living labs and sandboxes, with their safety, permits and fidelity to real use.
Readiness scales, stage gates and the passage from prototype to a reliable system in its operating environment.
Model evaluation, leakage, benchmarks, generated content and the reproducibility of model-assisted research.
Research on workplace change and information ecosystems, where studies involve people, institutions and platforms.
Demonstration and evaluation of technologies for energy, water, health and biotechnology, with One Health links.
How funders, institutions and journals evaluate research, and the integrity systems behind those judgements.
Every claim on Labs 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.
Labs works through six pillars of one annual programme, led by the Nexus Consortium, with GCRI, the Global Risks Forum (GRF) and the Global Risks Alliance (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
and 14 more
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Frascati Manual | OECD | Definitions and measurement guidance for research and experimental development, used in national R&D statistics |
| Oslo Manual | OECD and Eurostat | Definitions and measurement guidance for innovation in firms and other organisations |
| Technology readiness levels | NASA; European Commission; ISO 16290 | Level definitions from basic principles to a system demonstrated in its operating environment |
| FAIR Guiding Principles | FORCE11 and the GO FAIR community | Findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data and research objects |
| San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) | DORA | Assessment of research on its own merits rather than journal-based metrics |
| ISO 56000 series on innovation management | International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TC 279 | Vocabulary, system requirements and guidance for managing innovation |
| Recommendation on Open Science | UNESCO | Shared definitions, values and principles for open scientific knowledge, infrastructure and engagement |
| Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines | World Medical Association; CIOMS with WHO | Ethical principles and review requirements for research involving human participants |
| Reporting guidelines: CONSORT, SPIRIT, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STROBE | EQUATOR Network and guideline groups | Minimum reporting items by study design |
| European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity | ALLEA | Principles of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, and the handling of violations |
GCRI studies a field as science, GRF governs it and GRA builds shared financial understanding of it. Labs links to its counterparts so that work on one side is visible on the others.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Labs home · Platforms · Shared methodsAn outline of how the work is designed to run; it does not report the status of any decision or record.
Start from who you are. Answer an open call. Or form and lead a competence cell on the Labs platform.
Ministries, statistics offices and agencies: a national desk and chapter, and a seat in the working groups. National chapters
Operators, regulators, banks, insurers and professional bodies whose work touches Labs. Participate
Courses and practice, with a record of every course completed. Free to study. Open learning
Draft, review and adopt the methods and data standards with the working groups. Working groups
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.
Bring together three to seven people with complementary skills: data, field practice, policy and communication.
Write to the team with the cell's name, members, area and region. You receive a reference and a contact. Write to the team
Pick one focus: research and evidence, data and maps, standards review, or community preparedness.
Follow shared study paths at Risk Academy, with practice and a record of every course completed. Hazards and resilience
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.
Open risk profiles for 195 countries, with sources and licences on every value. Open the Index
Correct a value or reply for your country. The change is logged with its effect. Open the Index
Offer a dataset. It enters through the licence gate, with your credit. Open the Index
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.
Every country profile carries the source and licence of each value. Correct a value or reply
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.
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.
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.
Our articles, maps and twins are free to read and free to republish. Readers and partners keep it that way.
GCRI is a not-for-profit institution. To ask who funds a piece of work, use the funding questions form.
Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.
Articles: CC BY 4.0. Figures, maps, twins and data: CC BY 4.0. Other uses: ask through the permissions form.