MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157443224 · doi:10.5055/ajdm.2021.0386

Early casualty estimates and medical help management after the M7.3 Kermanshah earthquake of November 12, 2017 in Iran

2021· article· en· W3157443224 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Mansour Farahbod, Max Wyss

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Disaster Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BCNorth Pacific Marine Science Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical emergencyEarthquake casualty estimationDisaster medicineOccupational safety and healthMedicinePoison controlForensic engineeringComputer securitySuicide preventionGeographySeismologyEarthquake scenarioComputer scienceEngineeringGeologySeismic hazardPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical responses to fatal earthquakes have to be rapid to save lives. Here we report the QLARM alert that was issued less than an hour after the magnitude 7.3 Kermanshah, Iran, earthquake of 2017 and the following medical response. The near-real-time estimates of fatalities were 520, on average, and it took official and news reports about 2 days to settle on a minimum of 630 fatalities as a final count. The response of various Iranian agencies was rapid and effective, facilitated by the relatively small area of the disaster (radius of about 50 km). Although this disaster was not large enough to require international first responders to rush to the scene, it is clear that in very large earthquake disasters, a fast, accurately informed response saves lives. For international teams to be of optimal use, the locations and functionality levels of health facilities should be known. This information could be included in the earthquake alerts, but the necessary worldwide data on hospitals are currently not available.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Disaster MedicineSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207