MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908068078 · doi:10.1111/jfr3.12222

Quantifying resilience to flooding among households and local government units using system dynamics: a case study in Metro Manila

2015· article· en· W1908068078 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charlotte Kendra Gotangco, Justin See, John Paolo Dalupang, Andrea Monica D. Ortiz, Emma Porio, Gemma Narisma, Antonia Yulo‐Loyzaga, Jessica Dator-Bercilla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Flood Risk Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJapan International Cooperation AgencySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Flooding (psychology)Government (linguistics)Local governmentSystem dynamicsPsychological resilienceExploratory researchBusinessWarning systemEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental economicsEconomicsComputer scienceGeographyPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A generic systems dynamics (SD) model template for resilience is adapted to analyse flooding impacts on household assets and local government assets of Pasig City, Metro Manila. SD simulations are used to quantify the loss of system performance due to adverse impacts, and the recovery of the system due to response measures. The simulation results reflect the decreasing levels of resilience among low‐income households, and the reliance of local government on budgeting cycles to replenish assets. The initial model needs to be expanded to include other determinants of resilience, but this exploratory study reflects the potential usefulness of SD simulations as a decision support tool for city policy makers. By quantifying changes in resilience measures over time, simulations can complement qualitative analyses and test policy and programme scenarios.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Flood Risk ManagementSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207