Supporting the role of emergent volunteers during disasters: A review of the 2021 B.C. Floods
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
Emergent volunteers play a vital role in supporting their local communities during emergencies or disasters. Frequently emergent volunteers find themselves as the first onsite; immediate capacity bolstering forces that fill gaps left by the scope and timing of the ‘official’ response. Despite their inherent presence during crises, these volunteers tend not to be formally acknowledged or incorporated within the larger response. In this study, we conduct a review of the various emergent responses during the BC 2021 flood disaster and evaluate their respective roles, strengths, weaknesses, and identify their common characteristics. This analysis aims to inform the employment of potential collaborative governance frameworks, namely the Constellation Collaborative Model (CCM) and the Johnson model, that appreciate and tangibly support emergent volunteer responses during disasters. On-the-ground preparedness initiatives and governance models that appreciate the presence and utility of emergent responders can promote a collaborative, safe, and supportive relationship between volunteers and governing authorities during emergencies. Such initiatives emphasise efficacy through an all of society approach to emergency management. With greater intensity of climate fuelled disasters, now is the right time to build the foundation for the next generation of emergency management systems which recognise the role of emergent volunteers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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