MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542178627 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n9p155

Investigation of Crisis Management Structure of the Selected Countries with an Emphasis on Natural Disasters Using Multi-Case Study Method

2016· article· en· W2542178627 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ali Asghar Melk Afzali, Daryush Shojaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementNatural disasterIslamIslamic republicCrisis managementBusinessBalance (ability)Environmental planningEconomic growthPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Since Iran is regarded as a high risky country in terms of natural disasters, it is essential to pay attention to the crisis management agendas. One of the approaches used for disaster management is a community-based approach. This paper aims to take a positive step in direction of optimal disaster management, by studying and investigating the disaster management structures of both developed and developing countries in terms of climate and occurrence of disaster similarities between target countries (U.S.A, Canada, Japan, turkey, India, Pakistan) and Islamic republic of Iran, by adopting the comparative study method. The findings indicate that there is an authenticity between type and extent of development and decentralized structure of the disaster management; as a result the decentralized structure provides a required arena for comprehensive participation at various levels. The social capability subjected to the dangers will be increased in confronting disasters and society recover to the prior state will be boosted, if authorities can establish a balance between provincial, city, district and rural capacities and potentials usage of Iran and planning in all cycles of disaster management and decentralized structure.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207