Modeling Community Recovery from Earthquakes
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
This paper sets out the foundations for developing robust models of community recovery from earthquake disasters. Models that anticipate post‐disaster trajectories are complementary to loss estimation models that predict damage and loss. Such models can serve as important decision support tools for increasing community resilience and reducing disaster vulnerability. The paper first presents a comprehensive conceptual model of recovery. The conceptual model enumerates important relationships between a community's households, businesses, lifeline networks, and neighborhoods. The conceptual model can be operationalized to create a numerical model of recovery. To demonstrate this, we present a prototype computer simulation model and graphical user interface. As the model is intended for decision support, it is important to involve potential users in model development. We conducted a focus group involving Puget Sound, Washington, area disaster management practitioners to elicit local insight about community recovery and model development needs, using the prototype as stimulus. Important focus group issues included potential model inputs, useful recovery indicators, potential uses of recovery models, and suitable types of software systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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