MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W32090446 · doi:10.1111/ajt.15828

Design Principles For Flood Disaster Management System (FDMS)

2006· dissertation· en· W32090446 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Azmi Azilawati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoche Organ Transplant Research FoundationGenome Canada
KeywordsFlood mythEmergency managementOrder (exchange)Management systemComputer scienceDisaster responseEngineeringDisaster areaRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementBusinessOperations managementGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flood disaster response and recovery attempts need timely interaction and coordination of public emergency services in order to save lives and property ln Malaysia, flood disaster situation is still managed manually through a rnulti-organizational team according to the standard operation procedure for disaster management. Therefore, there is a need to have an automated and integrated system to manage the flood disaster operation efficiently. Without speciEc design principles, the development of flood disaster management system or other similar system will be difficult to accomplish. In this study, several design principles and specifications for the flood disaster management system are suggested. A prototype called Flood Response Operation Management System was developed to verify the design principles. The Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use questionnaire is used to evaluate user’s acceptance of the prototype. Results showed that majority of the respondents are agreed and satisfied with the prototype.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisaster Management and Resilience→French-language works237,207→