MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392833600 · doi:10.46692/9781529222920.005

Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Building Resilience from Education, Local Government Units, and Communities

2023· other· en· W4392833600 on OpenAlexaff
Roxanna Balbido Epe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisaster risk reductionResilience (materials science)Reduction (mathematics)Government (linguistics)BusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We are living in a world that is continually challenged in addressing disaster risks, coping with the impact of disasters, and building the resilience of the population, especially among the vulnerable groups and communities. The risk of disaster is increasing at the global level, and the world is becoming more hazardous to live in (Bradshaw 2013, 15– 16). The Philippines ranks third as most at risk in the WorldRiskReports (Jeschonnek et al 2016, 2018; Jeschonnek, Kirch, and Mucke 2017), and has alleviated its risk index to the ninth rank in 2019. The Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines Status Report 2019 reveals data related to a continuum of threats that are also compounded with the country's young demographic profile. Children represent 38% of the Philippine population (CRC Coalition 2020, 4) and 31.4% of them are poor (Philippine Statistics Authority 2021). Thus, there is a need to reduce disasters risks and vulnerability, management of disaster risks, and build resilience through an integrated and childcentered approach. Securing the welfare of the people and focusing on the vulnerable groups of the population have been a priority toward sustainable development. Among the vulnerable groups, the children are “particularly vulnerable […] at greater risks […] and most affected by disasters” (Küppers et al 2018, 26). Angelika Böhling and Piere Thielbörger, in their foreword to the WorldRiskReport 2018 , emphasize the crucial need for action that requires “comprehensive and participatory concept to protect children in fragile situations and strengthen their rights […] as the only way to create the foundations for coming generations to develop their life perspectives, particularly in high-risk countries” (Jeschonnek et al 2018, 3). Furthermore, the increasing frequency and evolving challenges of disasters impact resulted in a paradigm shift of the global and national disaster risk reduction and resilience (DRRR) frameworks from a reactive approach to an overarching, inclusive, and proactive approach. Thus, a comprehensive and integrated child-centered DRR, managing disaster risk and vulnerability, and building resilience have been integrated into the global development agenda— the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207