CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Risk assessment

analysis with risk acceptance criteria or other decision parameters

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 16, 2026
Entity authorityQ1058438
Source-derived summary

Risk assessment is a process for identifying

hazards, potential (future) events which may negatively impact (harm) an individual(s), asset(s), and/or the environment

likelihood (probability) of those hazards occurring

consequences of those hazards

actions (risk reduction methods) which can mitigate these hazardous effects.

As the first stage of a risk assessment process, hazard analysis identifies the situations and events for all potential or foreseeable hazards.

As part of the risk assessment process, judgments may be made "on the tolerability of the risk on the basis of a risk analysis" (i.e. risk evaluation taking into account costs and benefits of further risk reduction). Sometimes risks can be deemed tolerable, meaning the risk "is understood and tolerated .. usually because the cost or difficulty of implementing an effective countermeasure for the associated vulnerability exceeds the expectation of loss."

Results of a risk assessment process may be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative fashion.

Risk assessment forms a key part of a broader risk management strategy to help reduce any potential risk-related consequences.

Rapid technological change, increasing scale of industrial complexes, increased system integration, market competition, and other factors have been shown to increase societal risk since the 90's. As such, risk assessments have become increasingly critical in mitigating accidents, improving safety, and improving outcomes.

More simply, risk assessment consists of an objective evaluation of risk in which assumptions and uncertainties are clearly considered and presented.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Risk assessment” as analysis with risk acceptance criteria or other decision parameters. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current 232-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Risk, assessment and analysis can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as analysis with risk acceptance criteria or other decision parameters. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1058438. The Library of Congress control number is sh87002638. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Risk assessment”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Risk assessment primary sources, Risk assessment archive and Risk research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Risk assessment”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Risk assessment” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.