MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281570923 · doi:10.1177/1354067x221103990

The Psycho-Anthropological Perspectives of Natural Hazards: Applicability of the ‘Protection Motivation Theory’ in Explaining Behavioral Responses Towards Tropical Cyclone Idai in the Chimanimani District of Zimbabwe

2022· article· en· W4281570923 on OpenAlexaff
Denboy Kudejira, Maurice Kwembeya, Sifikile Songo, Innocent Sifelani, Memory Matsikure

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture & Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalientPreparednessNatural disasterPsychologyFlexibility (engineering)Variety (cybernetics)Social psychologyApplied psychologyGeographyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper adopts a psycho-anthropological approach to explain individual behaviors in response to tropical cyclone Idai which made a landfall in the Chimanimani district of Zimbabwe in March 2019. Employing the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) as a lever of diagnosis, the study sought to demonstrate how psychological concepts and anthropological approaches can be infused to improve disaster preparedness. The evidence presented in the paper is based on an intensive ethnographic study conducted in Chimanimani district between November 2020 and July 2021, and which benefited from a variety of data collection techniques. The research findings reveal that beyond its utility in predicting individual protective behaviors towards a disaster, the PMT framework can be adopted as a tool with which postmortems of past disasters can be conducted to identify gaps and inform future disaster administration. The findings suggest that to be useful as a policy making and planning tool, the PMT should remain flexible, allowing for modifications to suite different socio-cultural contexts, including the flexibility to incorporate salient factors that might influence individuals’ cognitive mediating processes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture & PsychologySame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207