MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021030836 · doi:10.1504/ijem.2007.013994

Vulnerability index construction: methodological choices and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighbourhoods

2007· article· en· W2021030836 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Emergency Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Variable (mathematics)WeightingVulnerability assessmentEmergency managementFlooding (psychology)Index (typography)Environmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceGeographyOperations researchEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer securityEconomicsPsychologyPsychological resilienceMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indices are increasingly important for emergency planning at the community level, particularly with respect to identifying vulnerable neighbourhoods and mapping disaster potential. This paper provides both a critical literature review and an empirical case study that highlight the importance of different types of decisions in the construction of vulnerability indices. The case study focuses on the flooding risk in Vancouver, Canada, from both an evacuation and rebuilding perspective. Results of a sensitivity analysis suggest that spatial outcomes of vulnerability are highly sensitive to decisions regarding variable selection and representation, moderately sensitive to decisions about variable weighting and minimally affected by decisions about variable scaling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.317 · 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