Comparative Analysis of Disaster Risk Management Systems in Germany, USA, Russia and China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uniqueness of each system stems from the fact that the risks of disasters are specific and that their presence and manifestation are not universal and the same for every country. Just as no country is the same in all other segments, their disaster risk management systems are unequal. The paper describes the systems in four different countries, through observation and comparison of four areas of activity that are implemented in dealing with disasters. First of all, in the paper, the legal basis and institutional frameworks on which these systems rest in each of the countries were considered – starting from the international level and guidelines given at international conferences, to all by-laws and local disaster activity plans. It was considered how each of the states implements risk mitigation activities and how it increases preparedness for them. When the system recognizes risks, their probability and the frequency of their occurrence, activities are planned to prepare the country and every individual in it for a potentially unwanted event. Differences in the ways of mitigating risks and preparing all elements of the system and protected values for disasters are presented. The third element of action in the event of disasters concerns the response. In this segment, questions are raised regarding institutional solutions in the system, division of responsibilities, the priority of response and mobilization of resources at all levels. The last phase, the one that occurs after the disaster, and that is the recovery from it, depends on the reaction. In the paper, it was discussed how in the end, when a disaster occurs and when damage to the population, environment, material and other goods occurred, how each of the states implements reconstruction, i.e. how it recovers - whether that recovery was previously well planned or whether ad hoc solutions are applied.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".