MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Human Resources Development in Volcano Observatories Using the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Survey

2022· article· en· W4295809077 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolcanoGeneral partnershipAgency (philosophy)Medical educationObservatoryGeological surveyIndex (typography)GeographyTest (biology)Political scienceMedicineSociologyComputer scienceSocial scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess the role played by the International Training Course, given by the Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes (CSAV) at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo, in the development of human resources for volcano observatory staff around the world. The study design included a literature review, interviews with representatives from 10 national volcano observatories, and electronic surveys designed and conducted by Florida International University, targeting graduates of training courses sponsored by the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP), a cooperative partnership between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). The knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) method was used to develop a survey and a composite KAP index. Of the 92 individuals who answered the survey, 47 had completed the CSAV course. Two groups were formed from the survey respondents: (1) 47 people who were CSAV graduates; and (2) 45 people who did not take CSAV training. An independent samples t test and a one-way multivariate analysis were conducted to compare the KAP index and the three subindices. The heads of the volcano observatories identified the CSAV International Training as one of the most useful educational offerings relevant to volcano observatory operations available worldwide. The statistical analysis showed significant differences in the KAP index, knowledge subindex, and practice subindex between the two study groups. Results indicate that CSAV graduates are in a better position to attain self-sufficiency in studying and monitoring volcanoes, and by doing so, contribute more effectively to mitigation efforts for volcanic unrest and eruptions.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.320 · 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