MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Free Classification of Canadian and American Emergency Management Map Symbol Standards

2012· article· en· W2050800729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raechel Bianchetti, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Jinlong Yang, Justine I. Blanford, Anthony C. Robinson, Alexander Klippel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cartographic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbol (formal)Emergency managementProcess (computing)Information exchangeComputer scienceEmergency responseKnowledge managementComputer securityProcess managementBusinessOperations managementPolitical scienceMedical emergencyEngineeringTelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency management in transnational contexts can be a challenging endeavour. Cultural and language differences among multiple countries can hinder the exchange of information during dynamic emergency response. With increasing international threats and the explosion of near real-time data availability, the emergency response process has become mired in complex communication practices. Maps have the potential to provide an intuitive medium for communication and means for establishing situation awareness during emergency events. The development of map symbol standards is one method for improving communication efficiency. This paper evaluates how the design of two national emergency management map symbol sets (American ANSI and Canadian EMS) influences map-readers’ conception of represented information.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cartographic JournalSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207