MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vulnerability Assessment of Developing Countries: The Case of Small‐island Developing States

2007· article· en· W1998971033 on OpenAlexaff
Rosario Adapon Turvey

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Policy Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Vulnerability indexSmall Island Developing StatesFraming (construction)Vulnerability assessmentGeographyUrbanizationDeveloping countryIndex (typography)Composite indexEnvironmental resource managementPerspective (graphical)Economic geographyRegional scienceEnvironmental planningEconomic growthComposite indicatorClimate changeEnvironmental scienceComputer sciencePsychological resilienceEconomicsComputer securityEcologyEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article puts forward a spatial perspective in framing the methodology for vulnerability assessment (VA) of developing countries, with special reference to small‐island developing states (SIDS). Geographic vulnerability from a developing‐world perspective is defined by the country's susceptibility to physical and human pressures, risks and hazards in temporal and spatial contexts. In constructing the composite vulnerability index (CVI), four core indicators are selected as sub‐indices. The study confirms the vulnerability of SIDS based on four dimensions, namely, coastal index (G1), peripherality index (G2), urbanisation indicator (G3) and vulnerability to natural disasters (G4), and advocates consideration of place vulnerability and temporal distinctions when assessing the vulnerability of SIDS in particular.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations147
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment Policy ReviewSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207