MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954611542 · doi:10.1111/disa.12372

Flooding and the ‘new normal’: what is the role of gender in experiences of post‐disaster ontological security?

2019· article· en· W2954611542 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy J. Haney, Daran Gray‐Scholz

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntological securityFlood mythFeelingFlooding (psychology)Human factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSet (abstract data type)Work (physics)Qualitative researchSuicide preventionQualitative propertyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPsychologySocial psychologyComputer securitySociologyMedicineGeographyEngineeringMedical emergencyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disaster researchers have long analysed disruption to affected residents' ontological security, often represented by routines and familiar landmarks. Surprisingly little of this work, though, assesses who is most likely to experience feelings of disruption. Using a representative set of survey data, complemented by follow-up interview data from 40 residents affected by the Southern Alberta Flood of June 2013, this paper explores how demographic characteristics, such as gender and place attachment, impact on residents' sense of disruption and loss. The findings indicate that women and people with stronger emotional and social ties to their neighbourhoods are most likely to experience disrupted ontological security; home flooding and evacuation orders are also significant predictors. The qualitative interview data reveal that many participants felt unsettled and disrupted by myriad factors, such as ongoing construction, which prevented them from establishing a 'new normal'. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for policymakers and service providers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisastersSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207