Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of Communities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates the concept of disaster resilience through the development and application of quantitative measures. As the idea of building disaster‐resilient communities gains acceptance, new methods are needed that go beyond estimating monetary losses and that address the complex, multiple dimensions of resilience. These dimensions include technical, organizational, social, and economic facets. This paper first proposes resilience measures that relate expected losses in future disasters to a community's seismic performance objectives. It then demonstrates these measures in a case study of the Memphis, Tennessee, water delivery system. An existing earthquake loss estimation model provides a starting point for quantifying resilience. The analysis compares two seismic retrofit strategies and finds that only one improves community resilience over the status quo. However, it does not raise resilience to an adequate degree. The exercise demonstrates that the resilience framework can be valuable for guiding mitigation and preparedness efforts. However, to fully implement the concept, new research on resilience is needed that goes beyond loss estimation modeling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it