MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091273865 · doi:10.1108/ecam-05-2020-0296

A qualitative approach to investigate emergency preparedness state for the built environment in the UAE

2020· article· en· W3091273865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamdan Rashid Alteneiji, Vian Ahmed, Sara Saboor

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Construction & Architectural Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessDocumentationInterviewEmergency managementCrisis managementBusinessContent analysisPublic relationsPhase (matter)Political scienceProcess managementComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Emergency preparedness (EP) is one of the crucial phases of the disaster management cycle for the built environment. The body of knowledge, therefore, reports on different preparedness standards adopted by developed countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), Canada, Japan and Australia. Other countries, however, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (in the absence of its preparedness framework), have long adapted the UK preparedness standards. This has called for this study to investigate the state of EP practices in the UAE to identify the limitations and challenges it has been facing during its preparedness phase when adopting the UK preparedness standards. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative methods of data collection and documentation with the content analysis were adopted to identify the barriers faced by the preparedness phase of emergency management (EM) in the UAE. A Pilot study was therefore conducted to validate eight key elements of the EP phase identified from the literature. The state of EP phase and the extent to which the eight key elements of EP elements were practiced and the barriers in their implementation in the UAE were explored through interviews at federal (National Crisis and Emergency Management Authority) and local levels (local team of crisis and emergency management). Findings The study identified eight key elements of the EP phase and the associated barriers related to their implementation in the UAE. The barriers were ranked based on their severity by interviewing experts at both federal and local levels. Practical implications This paper addresses the need to investigate the state of the EP phase, its key elements and the barriers faced during its implementation in the UAE. Originality/value Due to the absence of any EP frameworks or systems in the UAE, this paper aims to validate the EP elements identified by adopting a qualitative approach.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Construction & Architectural ManagementSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207