Informality and the politics of urban flood management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores reasons for unproductive urban flood management agendas in informal settlements. Does geography of informal settlements inform city-led flood management agendas? And in what ways have residents of informal settlements responded to city-led flood management approaches? The paper argues that the supposed city managers – both state institutions and professional bodies – have consistently acted in their own interest while successfully using ‘blame game’ to alienate their responsibility of successfully implementing flood management agendas in informal settlements. Using Accra (Ghana) as a case study, the study used multiple qualitative methods such as interviews, focus group discussion and secondary data analysis. Findings indicate that, overall, residents of informal settlements are gradually embracing the reality that city managers do not promote their interests in addressing perennial flood events. In turn, the flood management outcomes that policies and plans ostensibly seek to achieve have only been modestly realised. Instead, flood management agendas have had perverse implications for residents of informal settlements. Recommendations to improve the situation are proffered.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it