MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929506112 · doi:10.3390/su11071970

How Development Affects News Media Coverage of Earthquakes: Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction in Observing Communities

2019· article· en· W2929506112 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Jamieson, Douglas A. Van Belle

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCenter for International Studies, University of Southern California
KeywordsNewspaperMedia coverageDisaster risk reductionNews mediaBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningAdvertisingSociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research suggests that lesson-drawing news coverage of disasters can create windows of opportunity for policy learning in the observing communities. This is especially important for cities facing similar vulnerabilities to disaster-affected communities, where they can learn from their events to pursue disaster risk reduction policies to mitigate against those risks at home. However, little is known about the conditions under which newspapers in at-risk communities provide the type of news coverage necessary for policy learning. Using logistic regression to analyze an original dataset produced from a content analysis of five newspapers’ coverage of five earthquakes, we demonstrate that the level of development of the disaster-stricken community systematically influences the nature of news coverage in at-risk communities. These results have important implications for the understanding of urban disaster risk reduction, suggesting that the conditions for bottom-up policy learning are more likely to occur following disasters in wealthier countries.

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)0.021
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207