MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323980905 · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2023.100706

Correlates of flood preparedness in urban households: Evidence from the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area of Ghana

2023· article· en· W4323980905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Kwabena Twerefou, Ernest Adu Owusu, Delali B.K. Dovie

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Challenges · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreEnvironment for Development
KeywordsFlood mythPreparednessMetropolitan areaGeographySocioeconomicsHousehold incomeEmergency managementEnvironmental planningBusinessEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The annual floods in cities in Sub-Saharan Africa are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. For coastal cities double flood burden from storms and sea level rise are phenomenal and in response, data is gradually emerging on the exposure of urban areas and households’ adaptation of which population determinants are mostly omitted. This paper uses a household survey of flood experiences, analyzed with the Tobit model to understand the social and demographic factors that drive households' preparedness for floods in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana. Findings show that the age and income of the household head and planned adaptation significantly increased the likelihood of households’ preparedness for floods. While community access to financial assistance reduced the likelihood of household preparedness, membership in social support groups and the availability of community-level social amenities and shelters increased the likelihood of household preparedness by 0.81 units (p<0.05), 1.72 units (p<0.01) and 1.33 units (p<0.01) respectively. Therefore, enhanced education and awareness of flood risks are major factors of flood disaster risk reduction amidst neighborhood networks towards scaling the relevance of anticipatory flood contingency planning in coastal urban planning and management and a recipe for mainstreaming the Sendai Framework for 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ChallengesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207