Earthquake Risk Perception in Belgrade: Implications for Disaster Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents quantitative research results regarding the influence of demographic factors on the earthquake risk perception of the citizens of Belgrade.This research aims to determine how much the citizens of Belgrade are aware of the risk and prepared to react in the event of an earthquake.The relationship between gender, age, level of education, and facility ownership with risk perception was examined.T-test, One-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to examine the relationship between the variables and the earthquake risk perception.The survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was given and then collected online among 235 Belgrade respondents during September 2020.The questions were divided into three categories.The first part of the questionnaire was consisted of general questions about the demographic characteristics of the respondents, then the questions that would determine the level of awareness of the respondents about earthquakes, and finally, the questions for determining the respondents' preparedness.The results of the research show that women have a higher perception of risk.It has been proven that the youngest respondents from the age category of 18-30 have the lowest risk perception.The influence of education level in no case showed a statistically significant correlation with risk perception.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".