MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Review of Geospatial Information Technology for Natural Disaster Management in Developing Countries

2012· review· en· W4254590385 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Herold, Michael Sawada

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisVulnerability (computing)Emergency managementDeveloping countryNatural disasterBusinessHazardEnvironmental planningNatural hazardEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer securityComputer scienceEconomic growthCartographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disasters are deadly and destructive events, particularly in developing countries where economic, social, political and cultural factors increase natural hazard vulnerability. The recent devastation of the Haiti earthquake on January 12th, 2010 was a prime example of the human toll a natural disaster can take in developing regions of the world. There is an imminent need to improve natural disaster management capacity in developing countries to reduce disaster impacts. Given that disasters are spatial phenomenon, the application of geospatial information technology (GIT) is essential to the natural disaster management process. However, in developing countries there are numerous barriers to the effective use of GIT, especially at the local level, including limited financial and human resources and a lack of critical spatial data required to support GIT use to improve disaster management related decision making processes. The results of a thorough literature review suggests that currently available free and open source GIT (FOS GIT) offers great potential to overcome some of these barriers. Thus, disaster management practitioners in developing countries could harness this potential in an attempt to reduce hazard vulnerability and improve disaster management capacity. The use of FOS GIT significantly reduces software costs and can help build local level GIT knowledge/technical skills that are required for successful GIT implementation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.343
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207