MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037154244 · doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1464

Emergency Managers in Ontario: An Exploratory Study of Their Perspectives

2009· article· en· W2037154244 on OpenAlex
N. Nirupama, David Etkin

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

VenueJournal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementExploratory researchDisaster risk reductionPerspective (graphical)Public relationsRisk managementBusinessOrder (exchange)Task (project management)Political scienceSociologyEnvironmental planningEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creating effective disaster and emergency management programs can be an enormously challenging task because of the many difficulties and barriers that present themselves to people and institutions working in this field. The present study addresses two main concerns: (1) what barriers exist within Canadian society to effective disaster risk reduction from the perspective of the emergency management community and (2) what barriers exist within the Canadian emergency management community to effective disaster risk reduction, both from a cultural and institutional perspective? We conducted interviews with emergency management professionals from the public and private sectors as well as some NGOs in order to ascertain their opinions and perspectives with respect to these questions. The results have been analyzed and discussed in this paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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