Emergency preparedness for higher risk populations: psychosocial considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was meant to be on 'vulnerable populations', as some population sub-groups do require special care, special planning and special integration of needs. However, the issue should be reframed in terms of groups at higher risks. The text explains how (1) there are contextual vulnerabilities, in (a) higher susceptibility, i.e. higher exposure to risk, (b) higher sensitivity, i.e. higher damage or higher brittleness, and (c) weaknesses and gaps in the emergency system; (2) that these higher susceptibility, sensitivity and system weaknesses involve important psychosocial considerations, which may stem from socio-demographic status or ripple effects in the community; and finally, (3) that addressing those 'soft spots' using the phrase 'vulnerable populations' can be misleading and disserving because it disempowers, stigmatises and deters one from a more thorough analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".