MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011524335 · doi:10.20965/jdr.2020.p0212

Questionnaire Survey on the Difficulty of Attending Work for Commuters After the 2018 Osaka Earthquake

2020· article· en· W3011524335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
U Hiroi, Naoya Sekiya, Shuntarou Waragai, Fusae Kukihara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Disaster Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)AttendanceQuestionnaireQuarter (Canadian coin)DowntownTransport engineeringTraffic congestionEngineeringPsychologyForensic engineeringGeographyEconomic growthMathematicsStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a questionnaire survey conducted on those who had difficulty commuting after the 2018 Osaka earthquake. As with the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, serious traffic congestion occurred in downtown Osaka following the 2018 disaster. Based on the questionnaire survey on those who had difficulty commuting, which is considered to be a factor of traffic congestion, it was found that 60–70% commuted as usual after the earthquake; about half of the commuters who usually take the train changed their method of commuting, one-quarter of whom used automobiles; there were very few who experienced problems in their work because they had not gone to work or their workplace had closed down for the day; and many felt that it would be better to receive instructions on work attendance in the aftermath of an earthquake. The present study points out the need for companies and society to adopt rules so that those who find it difficult to commute will refrain from going to work and remain in their local communities to help others, except for those in certain occupations or positions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Disaster ResearchSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207