MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043494872 · doi:10.1080/19475705.2013.818066

Estimating spatial disaster risk in urban environments

2013· article· en· W2043494872 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

VenueGeomatics Natural Hazards and Risk · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Vulnerability (computing)HazardDisaster risk reductionRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementRisk assessmentEmergency managementEnvironmental planningGeospatial analysisEnvironmental resource managementSpatial planningGeographic information systemVulnerability assessmentPopulationComputer scienceBusinessGeographyPsychological resilienceEnvironmental scienceCartographyComputer securityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishment of industries in urban zones increases the risk of technological disasters, thus affecting both population and the infrastructure. Disaster management includes organizational support building, risk assessment and prioritization, and analytical tools to support decision-making. A methodology has been proposed for estimating spatial disaster risk using the case of Toronto propane explosion of 2008, taking into account people's vulnerability, critical infrastructure, and the spatial impact of the hazard. It integrates the use of GIS spatial analysis and disaster management principles and can be visualized in web-mapping browsers for planning purposes. This approach can be applied in developing strategies for future risk reduction, risk-based land use planning, resilience, and capacity-building.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.233 · 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