Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Geographic and Social Predictors of Flood Risk Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The persistent gap in flood risk awareness in Canada, and elsewhere in North America, is a continual source of worry for researchers and emergency managers; many people living in at-risk places are simply unaware of risks and of their proximity to hazards. This study seeks to understand which residents were aware of flood risk, using unique representative survey data of Calgary residents living in the city's flood-prone neighborhoods collected after the devastating and costly 2013 Southern Alberta Flood. The article uses logistic regression models to analyze which residents were aware of risk to their homes. Findings indicate that, in addition to various demographic predictors, many of the geographic predictors (including the elevation of one's home relative to the river) are significant predictors of awareness. Having a direct sight line to one of Calgary's two rivers is also a significant predictor in some of the models, suggesting that the visibility of hazards matters for flood risk perception, although this effect fades when many of the geographic predictors are added. Finally, the models indicate that several variables related to local, neighborhood-based social networks are significant as well. These findings reveal that both physical surroundings and social context are important for understanding risk awareness. The article concludes by discussing the relevance for social science research on disasters and hazards, as well as for planners and emergency managers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".