MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Community strategies to improve flood risk communication in the Red River Basin, Manitoba, Canada

2010· article· en· W2093669630 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

VenueDisasters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythPoison controlStructural basinGeographyEnvironmental healthArchaeologyMedicineGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than a decade after the 1997 Red River Flood, vulnerability to future flooding exists due to a lack of risk communication. This study identifies risk communication gaps and discusses the creation of strategies to enhance information-sharing, bottom-up activity and partnership development. The objectives were achieved using mixed methods, including interviews, a floodplain-wide survey, and a decision-makers' risk management workshop. The results highlight a number of external pressures exerted by regional floodplain policies and procedures that restrict risk communication and affect social vulnerability in the rural floodplain. The failures of a top-down approach to floodplain management have impacted on communities' abilities to address floodplain risks, have amplified local risks, and have decreased community cooperation in floodplain management initiatives since the 1997 'Flood of the Century'. Recommended policies promote the establishment of community standards to compensate for gaps in risk communication and the development of partnerships between floodplain communities.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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