MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073466000 · doi:10.2202/1948-4682.1154

Developing International Standards for Disaster Preparedness and Response: How Do We Get There?

2011· article· en· W2073466000 on OpenAlex
David GC McCann, Heidi P. Cordi

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

VenueWorld Medical & Health Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessDisaster preparednessEmergency managementFlooding (psychology)Disaster responseDeveloping countryInternational communityPolitical scienceEmergency responseEnvironmental planningBusinessPublic relationsEconomic growthMedical emergencyGeographyMedicinePsychologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2010, the earthquake and the subsequent development of a cholera epidemic in Haiti, along with the massive flooding in Pakistan, demonstrated, once again, that international disaster relief operations, though vigorous, lacked effective integration and coordination. Needless duplication of resources and response characterizes international relief efforts. This paper examines evidence of developing international cooperative efforts for more effective disaster preparedness and calls for specific actions needed to move toward international standards of disaster preparedness and response.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.372 · 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