MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043787900 · doi:10.5055/jem.2014.0162

Public health-specific personal disaster preparedness training: An academic-practice collaboration

2014· article· en· W2043787900 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emergency Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsMilton District Hospital
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsPreparednessBaseline (sea)Context (archaeology)Psychological interventionEmergency managementMedicinePersonal protective equipmentCurriculumMedical educationPublic healthPsychologyNursingMedical emergencyPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseGeographyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To measure the following three relevant outcomes of a personal preparedness curriculum for public health workers: 1) the extent of change (increase) in knowledge about personal preparedness activities and knowledge about tools for conducting personal preparedness activities; 2) the extent of change (increase) in preparedness activities performed post-training and/or confidence in conducting these tasks; and 3) an understanding of how to improve levels of personal preparedness using the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) framework. DESIGN: Cross-sectional preinterventional and postinterventional survey using a convenience sample. SETTING: During 2010, three face-to-face workshops were conducted in three locations in West Virginia. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-one participants (baseline survey); 69 participants (1-year resurvey)-representing West Virginia local health department (LHD) and State Health Department employees. INTERVENTIONS: A 3-hour interactive, public health-specific, face-to-face workshop on personal disaster preparedness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Change in 1) knowledge about, and tools for, personal preparedness activities; 2) preparedness activities performed post-training and/or confidence in conducting these activities; and 3) the relationship of EPPM categories to personal preparedness activities. RESULTS: One year postworkshop, 77 percent of respondents reported having personal emergency kits (40 percent at baseline) and 67 percent reported having preparedness plans (38 percent at baseline) suggesting some participants assembled supply kits and plans postworkshop. Within the context of EPPM, respondents in high-threat categories agreed more often than respondents in low-threat categories that severe personal impacts were likely to result from a moderate flood. Compared to respondents categorized as low efficacy, respondents in high-efficacy categories perceived confidence in their knowledge and an impact of their response on their job success at higher rates. CONCLUSIONS: Personal disaster preparedness trainings for the LHD workforce can yield gains in relevant preparedness behaviors and attitudes but may require longitudinal reinforcement. The EPPM can offer a useful threat and efficacy-based lens to understand relevant perceptions surrounding personal disaster preparedness behaviors among LHD employees.

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)0.007
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.173 · 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