A methodology to estimate postdisaster unmet housing needs using limited data: Application to the 2017 California wildfires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plays an essential role in supporting the postdisaster recovery of states with unmet housing needs. HUD requires data on unmet needs to appropriate recovery funds. Ground truth data are not available for months after a disaster, however, so HUD uses a simplified approach to estimate unmet housing needs. State authorities argue that HUD's simplified approach underestimates the state's needs. This article presents a methodology to estimate postdisaster unmet housing needs that is accurate and relies only on data obtained shortly after a disaster. Data on the number of damaged buildings are combined with models for expected repair costs. Statistical models for aid distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) are then developed and used to forecast funding provided by those agencies. With these forecasts, the unmet need to be funded by HUD is estimated. The approach can be used for multiple states and hazard types. As validation, the proposed methodology is used to estimate the unmet housing needs following disasters that struck California in 2017. California authorities suggest that HUD's methodology underestimated the state's needs by a factor of 20. Conversely, the proposed methodology can replicate the estimates by the state authorities and provide accounts of losses, the amount of funding from FEMA and SBA, and the total unmet housing needs without requiring data unavailable shortly after a disaster. Thus, the proposed methodology can help improve HUD's funding appropriation without delays.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".