MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959250640 · doi:10.1111/disa.12379

Waiting for the flood: technocratic time and impending disaster in the Himalayas

2019· article· en· W2959250640 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythTechnocracyPopulationPreparednessNatural disasterState (computer science)GeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningSociologyDemographyArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A landslide occurred in the region of Zanskar in the Indian Himalayas in 2015, damming the Tsarap River, creating a lake that effectively became a ticking time bomb, threatening villagers downstream. During the period between the discovery of the natural dam and the bursting of the lake, the state's approach to disaster management plunged the local population into a situation where 'technocratic time' ruled, as government experts handled the impending disaster at a rhythm dictated by the production of studies and reports. Analysis of the temporality of disaster mitigation and preparedness measures during this anticipated flood, as well as of the factors that surrounded the events, reveals how attitudes towards the state shaped people's perceptions of these interventions. In Zanskar, the technocratic pace and the state's lack of transparency were seen as a form of oppression that further marginalised the region, in particular by subjecting its population to the process of waiting.

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)0.002
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisastersSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207