MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080477450 · doi:10.21100/gswr.v1i1.1088

Protocols and Practices in Emergency Evacuation of Women Fleeing Abuse

2020· article· en· W3080477450 on OpenAlex
Patricia Kostouros, D. Gaye Warthe

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGreenwich Social Work Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythEmergency evacuationEmergency managementMedical emergencyGeographyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past several years three major events causing community disasters, two wildfires and a flood, have occurred in the province of Alberta, Canada. When these large-scale events occurred all community residents were asked to follow provincial emergency evacuation procedures, which included a move to an evacuation centre. In some cases, women and their children who were living at domestic violence shelters may have been unsafe since they might encounter the partner they fled at the evacuation site. These researchers encountered such a situation on our campus which is one evacuation centre. In this project, we gathered information from both shelter staff and emergency evacuation personnel about how such circumstances were managed and inquired about future best practices for evacuating women with or without children who are fleeing domestic violence. Interviewees shared insights to inform disaster management and shelter protocols.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.319 · 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