Are We Prepared for the Next Disaster? Evidence from Ice Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impacts that an emergency had on people’s preparedness levels, using the December 2013 Ice Storm in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as a case. A questionnaire consisting of three sections was developed to measure the associated impacts, people’s reactions/opinions, as well as their preparedness levels before and after the ice storm. The goal of the research is not only to discuss the factors that influenced people’s ability to prepare, respond to and recover from the ice storm but also to generate useful insights for future disasters that are similar in nature. Our analysis includes various aspects such as the effectiveness of advance warnings and their ability to disseminate information to mass audiences. The findings show that, most of the respondents believe that they learned a lot about ice storms and their impacts because of their prior experience; a significant majority believe that it is the city’s/municipality’s responsibility to prepare for emergencies like ice storms; home ownership was significantly associated with the previous ice storm preparedness; and, power outage experience was significantly associated with the next ice storm preparedness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".