MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524472362 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n5p33

Application of Risk Perception Theory to Develop a Measurement Framework for City Resilience: Case Study of Suita, Japan

2016· article· en· W2524472362 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maiko Ebisudani, Akihiro Tokai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)PrioritizationSustainabilityCommunity resilienceRisk analysis (engineering)Identification (biology)Environmental resource managementRisk managementClimate changeOrder (exchange)Psychological resilienceBusinessRisk assessmentNatural disasterEnvironmental planningComputer scienceGeographyProcess managementPsychologyEnvironmental scienceSocial psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk management has developed as an important aspect of sustainability. In order to manage risk more effectively, an overall evaluation of regional resilience needs to be performed. Therefore, this paper develops a framework to measure overall resilience in a community, focusing on risk perceptions of citizens of Suita City, Japan. The framework includes three main phases: (1) identifying multiple risks in the city through discussions with local experts and city workers; (2) prioritizing those risks by applying principal component analysis (PCA); and (3) understanding the relationships among them using decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) analysis. As a result, 21 risks were identified, and subsequently, four risks were prioritized: climate change, lack of self-sufficient energy, damage to the ecosystem, and natural disasters. Lastly, the application of DEMATEL analysis revealed that climate change and natural disasters have the greatest cause-effect relationships among the risks. The framework proves that multiple risks can be prioritized and gives overall suggestions on what kinds of risk a community is facing; where to start considering how to manage resilience; and which functions/services a community should improve to boost resilience. The identification, prioritization, and visualization of significant risk relationships completed in this study can support decision-making processes in strengthening community resilience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207