MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764254282 · doi:10.2495/safe-v7-n3-337-351

Homeland security and emergency management in institutions of higher education (IHE): Texas case study

2017· article· en· W2764254282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Magdalena Denham, Ashish Kumar Khemka

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeland securityEmergency managementHomelandMedical emergencyPolitical scienceComputer securityPoison controlMedicineComputer scienceLawTerrorism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory case study adopted the classical content analysis (CCA), cross case mixed strategy and Qualitative Data Miner (QDA) correspondence analysis of websites across 41 accredited public Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) in the state of Texas. The conceptual framework guiding the study was based on adaptive resiliency and Disaster Resilient University (DRU) paradigms. The goal of this inquiry was to determine (a) the most common organizational arrangements adopted across the IHEs in Texas to integrate emergency management functions on their campuses?; (b) the scope of most common activities and engagement performed by IHEs in Texas with respect to supporting the DRU mission across the cycle of emergency management?; (c) competencies and job definitions of officials specifically involved in supporting the all-hazards approach to emergency management on IHE campuses in Texas?; (d) training, exercise and certification standards as well as emergency notification systems commonly adopted among the IHEs in Texas; and (e) the type of educational, awareness, and outreach programs which can be identified across Texas IHEs in support of the DRU mission? Common and divergent themes, as well as implications for IHE leadership practice will be discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207