MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785566094 · doi:10.3390/ijerph16050779

Emergency Logistics in a Large-Scale Disaster Context: Achievements and Challenges

2019· review· en· W2785566094 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Disaster researchScale (ratio)Humanitarian LogisticsEmergency managementEmergency responseKey (lock)Disaster responseComputer scienceBusinessData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementPolitical scienceComputer securityManagementMedical emergencyGeographyMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is growing research interest in emergency logistics within the operations research (OR) community. Different from normal business operations, emergency response for large scale disasters is very complex and there are many challenges to deal with. Research on emergency logistics is still in its infancy stage. Understanding the challenges and new research directions is very important. In this paper, we present a literature review of emergency logistics in the context of large-scale disasters. The main contributions of our study include three aspects: First, we identify key characteristics of large-scale disasters and assess their challenges to emergency logistics. Second, we analyze and summarize the current literature on how to deal with these challenges. Finally, we discuss existing gaps in the relevant research and suggest future research directions.

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.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.141 · 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