MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320916973 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180133

The Coping Strategies Patterns Based on Local Wisdom and Resilience Capital in Facing Natural Disaster Risk in Nagari Mandeh, Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4320916973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zikri Alhadi, Siska Sasmita, Arie Yulfa, Delmira Syafrini, Karjuni Dt. Maani, Ory Riandini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Negeri Padang
KeywordsNatural disasterResilience (materials science)Coping (psychology)BusinessRisk managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyPsychologyEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes coping strategies based on local wisdom and community resilience capital in Nagari Mandeh, Pesisir Selatan Regency, Indonesia, facing the risk of natural disasters.The research approach used in this article is qualitative, with data collection methods in observation, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions.The results found in the research written in this article are that the people in Nagari Mandeh have coping strategies as a form of resilience to disasters.Moreover, in building community resilience to disaster risk, Mandeh has some local wisdom pioneered by their predecessors, including the role of Niniak Mamak in fostering their nephew's children, where Ninik Mamak has a very central function in the Nagari.Finally, this article also describes the capital of community resilience in Nagari Mandeh, which supports preparedness to face the threat of natural disasters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207