A comparative study in disaster planning in selected countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Assessment of different strategic in disaster planning in selected countries. According to the international report indicating that IRAN is among the seven countries most susceptible to disaster, experiencing 31 known disasters out of 40 in the world, occurrence of 1536 moderate to severe earthquake, during 1370-80 and 712 other disasters at the same period it seems necessary to design a disaster plan."nMethods: This research is a comparative-descriptive and case based study in which the researcher used random sampling process in selecting the statistical society from both developed and developing countries. In this goal oriented research the necessary information are extracted from valid global reports, articles and many questionnaires which were subjected to scientific analysis."nResults: Studying different countries (which includes: Canada, Japan, India, USA, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran) shows that there is a direct relationship between the level of countries development and their success in disaster planning and management (including preventive measures and confrontation). In most of the studied countries, decentralized planning caused many professional planners participate in different levels of disaster management which ultimately led to development of efficient and realistic plans which in turn decreased the catastrophic effects of disasters dramatically. The results of the aforementioned countries showed that a balanced approach to disaster plan with investment in prophylactic area is very important."nConclusion: As our country uses a centralized strategy for disaster management which has proven its ineffectiveness, the researcher suggests that we should change our approach in disaster management and let our planners participate from all levels include: provincial, rural and etc. This will led to a reality based planning and using all potential capacities in disaster management. According to this study it will be possible to use prophylactic delusions and to mitigate the outcome of threatening disasters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".