MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post-disaster resettlement, development and change: a case study of the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran

2006· article· en· W1509144793 on OpenAlexaff
S A Badri, Ali Asgary, A R Eftekhari, Jason M. Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationSocioeconomic statusEmpowermentSocioeconomicsSocioeconomic developmentPopulationNatural disasterSettlement (finance)GeographyEconomic growthEnvironmental healthBusinessMedicineSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planned and involuntary resettlement after natural disasters has been a major policy in post-disaster reconstruction in developing countries over the past few decades. Studies show that resettlement can result in significant adverse impacts on the resettled population. Conversely, a well-planned and managed resettlement process can produce positive long-term development outcomes. This article presents the results of a case study undertaken 11 years after the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. During the reconstruction period, a policy of involuntary planned resettlement was pursued extensively. The socioeconomic changes that occurred as a consequence of this policy of involuntary resettlement are analysed. Data were collected via a questionnaire survey that involved a sample of 194 relocated households (grouped into a settlement that later became a town). The paper shows that relocated families face difficult socioeconomic challenges after relocation and regrouping. This is especially true with respect to employment, income, the empowerment of women and lifestyle issues.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations156
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisastersSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207