Centralized decision making, users' participation and satisfaction in post‐disaster reconstruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a study of a post‐flood reconstruction project conducted in 2003 in the village of Bousalem in Tunisia, a country that is poorly documented in reconstruction literature and that is known for its high levels of centralization in decision making. It examines the relations between project stakeholders, the structure of the team established to conduct the project (the Temporary Multi‐Organisation, TMO) and the most important concerns of end‐users. It particularly shows the drawbacks of neglecting a participatory approach and favouring instead the centralization of decision making at different levels of the TMO organisational structure. Design/methodology/approach Users' satisfaction was assessed through technology transfer indicators, based on the qualitative analysis of several interviews with end‐users. The analysis of the organizational system was based on a qualitative analysis of the TMOs' formal and informal structuring. Findings The results confirm the need to decentralize decisions at a level that: optimizes the efficiency of local stakeholders; facilitates the participation of end‐users; and allows an appropriate distribution of responsibilities and risks among stakeholders. Originality/value The results show how certain decisions related to the structure and functioning of the TMO affect the match between the project initiators' capacity to provide an adequate solution and the users' expectations and requirements after the disaster.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it