MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917350861 · doi:10.20965/jdr.2019.p0387

Disaster Response and Mitigation Support Technology for All-Hazards in Tokyo Metropolitan Area

2019· article· en· W2917350861 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshiaki HISADA, Toshihiro Osaragi, Masahiro Murakami, Osamu Mizuno, Wataru Kobayashi, Susumu Yasuda, Miho Ohara, Tomohisa Yamashita, Kazuyuki Takada, Takashi Suematsu, Jun Shindo, Takuya Oki, Akira Kakizaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Disaster Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarthquake and Disaster Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsVector Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementNatural hazardFlood mythNatural disasterMetropolitan areaBusinessHazardScope (computer science)Environmental planningDisaster responseComputer scienceComputer securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Theme 7-2 of SIP Disaster Prevention (Enhancement of Social Resiliency against Natural Disaster of Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program), we implemented the two subthemes to develop the disaster response and mitigation technology effective for the complex disaster caused by earthquake and flood by torrential rain in megalopolis such as Tokyo metropolitan area; “Subtheme 1: Development of Application Software for Supporting All-Hazards Management in Megalopolis and Commercial Areas around Large Terminal Stations,” and “Subtheme 2: Sustainable Development of Local Disaster Prevention Technology with Visualization Application.” In the former, we formulated behavioral guidelines of central city areas during disasters based on the hazard/risk assessment, and developed an application software for PC/smartphone to support emergency management by delivering relevant information to civilians and disaster response workers during the disaster. Especially, the application would reduce secondary disasters, such as the confusion/panic by the huge number of crowds. In the latter, to “efficiently utilize the limited time, human resources and goods and to minimize damage” at the time of the disaster, we developed a “travel support application,” which can efficaciously “assign” workers to various tasks (the events that require a response) that are spatially distributed at the occurrence of disaster, “navigate” by identifying optimal routes for patrol and “monitor” progress.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.368 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Disaster ResearchSame topicEarthquake and Disaster Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207