MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251422252 · doi:10.1504/ijem.2019.10020871

Canada's 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire evacuation: experiences of the Muslim community

2019· article· en· W4251422252 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaida Mamuji, Jack Rozdilsky

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Emergency Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPreparednessEmergency managementWork (physics)Suicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsQualitative researchEnvironmental planningPublic relationsGeographySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringMedical emergencyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores issues faced by the largest visible minority group impacted by the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire evacuation - the Muslim community. Through qualitative methods and deep analysis of data gathered, challenges and opportunities that are relevant both for improving emergency preparedness within the Muslim community, and for improving the provision of emergency social services at large, are discussed. The overall goal of this study is to give voice to the experiences of the Muslim community, and to highlight specific accommodations that could have been beneficial. While in recent years, research efforts have been undertaken to better improve the needs of First Nations and Indigenous groups in Canada during wildfire disasters, this work is a starting point for considering other portions of Canada's diverse communities.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Emergency ManagementSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207