MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969811330 · doi:10.5055/jem.2019.0425

Nuclear emergencies and natural disasters

2019· article· en· W2969811330 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emergency Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural disasterRadiological weaponNuclear power plantNuclear powerPlan (archaeology)Nuclear disasterNatural (archaeology)Emergency managementEnvironmental planningEmergency responseAccident (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessNuclear plantMedical emergencyEngineeringGeographyPolitical scienceMedicineNuclear engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fukushima disaster following the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan demonstrates the complexity of responding to nuclear emergencies during a natural disaster. Current international safety standards and guidance do not specifically address this type of situation. The potential conflicts between the response to the conventional impacts and the radiological consequences, real and perceived, can impede the effectiveness of the overall emergency response. The present article discusses the strategic and operational challenges likely to be encountered in such a complex emergency, and draws conclusions on how countries should better plan for the low probability but high consequence impacts of natural disasters coincident with a nuclear accident at a nuclear power plant.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.288 · 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