MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313327345 · doi:10.3390/su15010387

Risk Narrative of Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP): The Importance of the ‘Social’

2022· article· en· W4313327345 on OpenAlex
Brielle Lillywhite, Gregor Wolbring

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoachingKnowledge managementPublic relationsRisk managementDisaster risk reductionInclusion (mineral)Emergency managementSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk perception, literacy, communication, narrative, governance, and education are important aspects of emergency and disaster management, preparedness, and planning (EDMPP) as they for example influence and direct EDMPP policies and actions. A thorough understanding of the ‘social aspects of risk is important for EDMPP, especially in relation to marginalized populations who are often overlooked. Technologies are increasingly employed for EDMPP. How these technology applications identify and engage with the ‘social’ of risk in general and the ‘social’ of risk experienced by marginalized populations is important for EDMPP. Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and similar phrases are employed as policy concepts to improve research, education, and participation in the workplace for marginalized groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, visible/racialized minorities, disabled people, and LGBTQ2S including in workplaces engaging with EDMPP which includes universities. The aim of this scoping review was to generate data that allows for a detailed understanding of the risk related discussions within the EDMPP academic literature as these discussions shape EDMPP policies and actions. The objective of this scoping review study was to map out the engagement with risk, specifically the social aspects of risk, in the EDMPP-focused academic literature with a focus on (a) EDMPP in general, (b) COVID-19, (c) EDMPP and marginalized groups, (d) EDMPP and patients, and (e) EDMPP and technologies (artificial intelligence, machine learning, machine reasoning, algorithm design approaches such as Bayesian belief networks, e-coaching, decision support systems, virtual coaching, automated decision support, e-mentoring, automated dialogue and conversational agents). Using the academic databases SCOPUS, Web of Sciences, and databases accessible under Compendex and EBSCO-HOST and performing hit count frequency searches of online and downloaded abstracts and thematic analysis of downloaded abstracts the study reveals a lack of coverage on the social aspects of risk and engagement with risk concepts such as risk perception, risk governance, risk literacy, risk communication, risk education and risk narrative especially in conjunction with marginalized groups and technologies employed in EDMPP decision support. Our findings suggest many opportunities to further the EDMPP academic inquiry by filling the gaps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.309 · 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