MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293193200 · doi:10.4095/329406

BC Disaster Risk Reduction Hub: working together to build resilient communities in British Columbia, design concept note

2022· report· en· W4293193200 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Safaie, J M Journeay, M Ulmi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisaster risk reductionResilience (materials science)Work (physics)Risk managementEmergency managementCorporate governanceNatural disasterModernization theoryEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEngineeringGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BC Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Hub Design Concept outlines the purpose, objectives, role, and institutional structure for the proposed secretariat to be established at provincial level to facilitate connections and collaboration between science and policy actors for the common goal of disaster and climate risk reduction. The role of DRR Hub includes 1) responding to priority demands of practitioners and policy designers for risk data management and production of relevant risk information and 2) enabling its use in design of policies and investments that build resilience of the communities in BC. The proposed design of DRR Hub is based on inputs and consultations with a wide range of provincial and local level actors in disaster and climate risk management convened through DRR Pathways project led by Natural Resources Canada. The Hub will enable collaborations and connections between science and policy researchers, designers, and decision makers to work together in enhancing the governance of disaster and climate risk information and building resilient communities in BC aligned with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and BC Emergency Program Act Modernization.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207