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 OpenAlexaffabout
Costas Armenakis, N. Nirupama

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomatics Natural Hazards and RiskSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207