MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217178765 · doi:10.1080/10106049.2021.2012529

COVID-19 pandemic hazard–risk–vulnerability analysis: a framework for an effective Pan-India response

2021· article· en· W3217178765 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeocarto International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardMegacityGeographyVulnerability (computing)PreparednessPandemicGeospatial analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SocioeconomicsCartographyEnvironmental healthComputer securityMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyEconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the COVID-19 risk considering positive cases (as a hazard) and the demographic structure (as a socio-economic vulnerability) at districts scale across India using fuzzy analytical hierarchical process and geospatial modelling. Despite the fact that the high and very high COVID-19 hazard was observed in a limited area (14.2%, 233 districts), the proportion of high to very high COVID-19 risk was evident in larger regions (42.5%, 575 districts). A moderate to very high socio-economic vulnerability was recorded in major parts of the country (60.0%, 557 districts), while the districts with megacities had been severely affected due to the more complex urban and social systems. The study highlights the zones under high COVID-19 hazard and its possible linkages with vulnerability and risk at district scales in India that may effectively support emergency preparedness and response mechanisms during the different waves of the pandemic.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.294 · 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