Religion Influence on Disaster Risk Reduction: A case study of Serbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human perception of nature and God have always been inextricably linked. In order to understand nature and its inherent processes, including various natural hazards, the reasons for their origin were often attributed to God's will, suffering for sin and the similar. Fear of material and human losses prompted a man to pray and offer sacrifices/gifts and other rituals to appease the "wrath of the gods". The progress of civilization and technology has not alleviated the destruction and trauma that natural disasters inflict on all aspects of social life. A major obstacle to this is the exponential population growth in vulnerable areas. The frequency of natural disasters and the fatalistic attitudes that limit the effective fight against them have motivated religious communities and individuals to cooperate with international and international organizations and institutions to reduce the risk of local disasters. Believers thus receive the necessary psychological and financial assistance and support from religious communities during all phases of disaster management. Therefore, the subject of this paper is a comprehensive examination relationship between the degree of religiosity of the population and how this connection impacts the policy of reducing disaster risk. The aim of the research is to scientifically describe the nature of the relationship between the degree of religiosity of citizens and different segments of disaster risk reduction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".