An exploration of residents’ intended wildfire evacuation responses in Mt. Lorne, Yukon, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfire evacuations disrupt people’s lives, create an additional hazard for emergency responders and residents, and are expensive to execute. Alternatives to evacuation are used in Australia and a few jurisdictions in the United States. Numerous studies have examined the “stay and defend” option during a wildfire in Australia, and evacuation alternatives have also been examined in the US. However, evacuation alternatives have not yet received scholarly attention in Canada. This study focused on the community of Mt. Lorne, Yukon, and explored residents’ perceptions of alternatives to evacuation due to wildfires, their evacuation intentions, and factors that influenced their intentions. Focus group participants planned to stay on their property despite a wildfire evacuation order because of the perceived safety of their property, and concerns about evacuating including leaving their property unprotected, losing harvested meat or other food stocks due to spoiling, and not knowing what to do with sled dog teams or livestock. However, some of these residents lacked the knowledge about how to stay on their property safely.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".