Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency Management has not developed in a cohesive or comprehensive manner. Differing terms are used to name identical concepts. A standard comprehensive doctrine for the important development of emergency management is needed. In this paper I explain a doctrinal framework for emergency management. The paper states a clear identification of the five dimensions, and each of their components, necessary to the informed practice of Emergency Management. Although emergencies vary in cause and severity, the process of Emergency Management necessary for optimal handling of these emergencies varies little. The “All Hazards Approach” to emergency management establishes and reinforces commonality in processes, procedures, planning templates and organizational structure. The three types of agencies associated with emergency management activities are discussed, including the subject matter agency, coordinating agency, and supporting agency. The four critical functions of emergency management are detailed, and include mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, often all carried out concurrently. The ten activities, and seven resources of emergency management are highlighted. There are many ways to represent the integration of these five dimensions, to ensure completeness, while ensuring clarity; the two most common are described. When experts in Emergency Management follow the doctrine, they can coordinate all those involved to be sure that all aspects of any hazard are considered, and that all organizations/agencies, functions, activities, and resources of Emergency Management are coordinated and optimally active. Following this process is the only way to ensure the best outcomes from any emergency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".