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 OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Kostouros, D. Gaye Warthe

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.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreenwich Social Work ReviewSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207