Review of resilience hubs and associated transportation needs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid urban growth and the devastating impacts of disasters and emergencies have challenged infrastructure and social systems in many communities. Recently, the nascent concept of “resilience hubs” has emerged to help communities overcome these challenges and improve well-being during disasters and everyday conditions. This paper provides an early conceptual understanding of resilience hubs, in particular their associated transportation needs, through a comprehensive literature review. The review identified characteristics and needs for planning hubs by focusing on their current definitions and related concepts (e.g., evacuation shelters, mobility hubs). In all, the review identified that resilience hubs could be a successful tool for communities in addressing the important needs of residents, evacuees, and survivors. However, we found that the placement of hubs is not methodical or optimized, and hubs have yet to be evaluated using metrics or key performance indicators. Critically, most literature and examples of resilience hubs fail to consider: 1) how people and relief supplies will travel to/from hubs, or 2) potential transportation services that could be offered by hubs. We recommend that programs that identify, design, and create resilience hubs should emphasize mechanisms for providing reliable and equitable transportation for people and relief supplies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it