MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2917159752 · doi:10.1017/9781108564540.019

Disaster Risk Reduction in Cruise Shipping, Capacity Building for Crew Members and the Polar Code

2019· book· en· W2917159752 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Kirchner

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineDisaster risk reductionRisk analysis (engineering)ScholarshipPolitical scienceCrewLaw and economicsBusinessComputer securityEnvironmental planningComputer scienceEngineeringLawSociologyGeographyAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chapter examines the international legal foundations of DRR through the principles of prevention, mitigation, and preparedness. It is argued that the meaning of, as well as the relationship between, the principles are more complex than is often described within legal scholarship. In particular, the positioning of legal obligations within these ‘phases’ as situated on a linear timeline of the ‘disaster management cycle’ is rejected, in favour of a more functional approach focusing on the extent to which international law provides obligations relating to the prevention and minimisation of disaster losses. It is argued that this approach opens up conceptual spaces to account for measures not accurately fitting into the specific principles or phases (such as early warning systems) EWSs) and that the approach provides a clearer analysis of existing obligations, as well as identifies gaps to be addressed in the future.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→