Public Participation in the Emergency Response Phase of Flooding: A Case Study of the Red River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency flood response is a controversial phase in flood management mostly because there is virtually no public input into important decisions such as evacuation orders. Little attention has been paid to the potential for involving the public more in decision-making in this phase of flood management. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether more public involvement in the emergency response phase would create greater support for government action, minimize uncertainty and dissatisfaction, and improve overall flood management. The specific objectives were to: l) identify and describe key publics, government agencies, and civic organizations involved in emergency flood response; 2) determine the understanding that the public had of their role in emergency flood response; 3) identify and describe interactions among key participants during the emergency flood response phase; 4) evaluate public involvement practices in the emergency response phase; and 5) develop recommendations to improve public involvement in the emergency response phase of a flood. A case study approach involving two communities from Canada and the United States in the Red River Basin was used to accomplish the objectives of the study. One community was the village of Rosenort in Manitoba, and the other was the city of Drayton in North Dakota. Data collection methods included document review and semi- structured qualitative interviews...
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".