MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194146056 · doi:10.1289/isee.2021.o-sy-074

Identifying vulnerable urban neighbourhoods and their environmental, density, and housing characteristics in Accra, Ghana using census and remote sensing data

2021· article· en· W3194146056 on OpenAlexaff
Robert MacTavish, Honor Bixby, Brian E. Robinson, Alicia Cavanaugh, Majid Ezzati, Samuel Agyei‐Mensah, Ayaga A. Bawah, Alexandra M. Schmidt, Jill Baumgartner

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaCensusGeographySlumPopulationEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsLogistic regressionToiletMedicineEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Identifying vulnerable urban communities, commonly known as slums, can facilitate targeted policies to reduce urban economic and social inequities in cities, but these data are rarely available. We aimed to identify vulnerable urban neighbourhoods and their environmental and housing characteristics in Accra, Ghana using available training data on the city center (Accra Metropolitan Area - AMA) applied to the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA). METHODS: We accessed the following enumeration area (EA)-level data for Greater Accra: slum classification available for a subset of 2,418 EAs in the AMA from the Accra Metropolitan Assembly and UN-Habitat 2011 report; housing conditions from the most recent Ghana Census (2010); and environmental quality attributes from remote sensing data provided by the United States Geological Survey and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We fitted a Bayesian logistic regression model to evaluate associations between housing, density, and environmental attributes with vulnerable area classification of EAs in the AMA. We then applied the model to predict the probability of each urban EA in GAMA as being vulnerable. RESULTS:We estimated that approximately one-fifth of EAs in the GAMA had a vulnerable area probability greater than 80%, corresponding to a population of 752,367 likely living in suboptimal conditions. The variables associated with a higher probability of an EA being vulnerable included greater use of public toilet facilities [OR: 3.51 (95% credible interval (CI): 1.55,7.53)], higher population density [OR: 5.72 (95% CI: 3.85,8.65)], lower use of improved wall materials [OR: 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03,0.43)], lower elevation [OR: 0.45 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.58)], lower use of indoor piping as a drinking water source [OR: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.25,0.99)], and lower vegetation abundance [OR: 0.25 (95% CI: 0.16,0.39)]. CONCLUSIONS:Our approach can be used in future studies to identify geographic clusters of vulnerable areas where interventions are warranted to improve housing and environmental conditions. KEYWORDS: Built environment, Socio-economic factors, Epidemiology

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)0.004
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207