MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553195143 · doi:10.1177/028072701002800102

Factors Associated with Evacuation from Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, 2003

2010· article· en· W2553195143 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Horney, Pia D. M. MacDonald, Marieke Van Willigen, Philip Berke, Jay S. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographyResidenceTerritorialityFlood mythPopulationSocial capitalStormDemographySociologyMeteorologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important differences in evacuation exist across households. This study describes associations between social factors and evacuation from Hurricane Isabel by residents of North Carolina in 2003. Census blocks in three affected counties were stratified by flood zone and 30 census blocks were selected probability proportionate to population size from each flood zone. Within selected blocks, 7 random interview locations were chosen using a geographic information systems-based site selection tool. Risk differences and 95% confidence intervals for evacuation were calculated. High levels of neighborhood social cohesion, markers of territoriality (e.g., no trespassing signs), membership in church or civic organization, volunteerism, neighbors’ evacuation, and longer length of residence were associated with reduced hurricane evacuation. Differential levels of social capital, social cohesion, and related social factors contributed to differential rates of evacuation from Hurricane Isabel. Those who reported closer relationships with neighbors and were active volunteers in the community may be more susceptible to evacuation failure and should receive targeted messages regarding evacuation from officials.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mass Emergencies & DisastersSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207