Disaster Assessment and Mitigation Planning: A Humanitarian Logistics Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a mathematical modeling-based approach for assessing disaster effects and selecting suitable mitigation alternatives to provide humanitarian relief (HR) supplies, shelter, rescue services, and long-term services after a disaster event. Mitigation steps, such as arrangement of shelter and providing HR items (food, water, medicine, etc.) are the immediate requirements after a disaster. Since governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing humanitarian aid need to know the requirements of relief supplies and resources for collecting relief supplies, organizing and initiating mitigation steps, a quick assessment of the requirements is the precondition for effective disaster management. Based on satellite images from weather forecasting channels, an area/dimension of the disaster-affected zones and the extent of the overall damage may often be obtained. The proposed approach then estimates the requirements for HR supplies, supporting resources, and rescue services using the census and other government data. It then determines reliable transportation routes, optimum collection and distribution centers, alternatives for resource support, rescue services, and long-term help needed for the disaster-affected zones. A numerical example illustrates the applicability of the model in disaster mitigation planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".