MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311629902 · doi:10.3390/ijerph192316153

Evaluating Community Resilience and Associated Factors One Year after the Catastrophic Fort McMurray Flood

2022· article· en· W4311629902 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gloria Obuobi-Donkor, Ejemai Eboreime, Reham Shalaby, Belinda Agyapong, Medard Kofi Adu, Ernest Owusu, Wanying Mao, Folajinmi Oluwasina, Hannah Pazderka, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersMental Health FoundationGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsFlood mythResilience (materials science)Poison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionCommunity resiliencePsychological resilienceInjury preventionGeographyEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineEngineeringArchaeologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resilience after natural disasters is becoming an increasingly key area of research. In April 2020, parts of Fort McMurray were affected by severe floods. The flooding caused the loss of properties, evacuation of some residents, and effects on their mental health. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the prevalence and associated factors between flood experience and low resilience a year after the 2020 floods in Fort McMurray. METHOD: Data collection was accomplished one year after the flood, from 24 April to 2 June 2021, using an online survey. The data were analyzed with SPSS version 25 using univariate analysis with the chi-squared test and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of low resilience was 37.4%. Respondents under 25 years were nearly 26 times more likely to show low resilience (OR = 0.038; 95% CI 0.004-0.384) than respondents 40 years and above. Responders with a history of depression (OR = 0.258 95% CI: 0.089-0.744) and a history of anxiety (OR = 0.212; CI 95% 0.068-0.661) were nearly four to five times more likely to show low resilience than those without a history. Similarly, respondents willing to receive mental health counselling (OR = 0.134 95% CI: 0.047-0.378) were 7.5 times more likely to show low resilience. Participants residing in the same house before the flood were almost 11 times more likely to show low resilience (OR = 0.095; 95% CI 0.021-0.427) than those who relocated. Participants who received support from the Government of Alberta were less likely to express low resilience than those who received no or limited support (OR = 208.343; 95% CI 3.284-13,218.663). CONCLUSION: The study showed a low resilience rate among respondents following the 2020 flooding in Fort McMurray. Factors contributing to low resilience include age, history of depression or anxiety, and place of residence after the flood. After the flood, receiving support from the government was shown to be a protective factor. Further studies are needed to explore robust risk factors of low resilience and measures to promote normal to high resilience among flood victims in affected communities.

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)0.009
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207