MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393858326 · doi:10.25071/5f0kh483

Logistics: More than a List

2022· article· en· W4393858326 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsGLS Industries (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 According to Canada’s Incident Command System (ICS), logistics represent the provision of “resources and other services to support incident management” (ICS Canada, 2019). Sometimes referred to as the “getters”, people working in a Logistics Section are faced with the challenge of finding diverse products and services to support efforts on the front lines, within the command centre, and at reception and registration centres. While a comprehensive hazard assessment can be helpful to identify typical resources, in a disaster situation, we never really know what we need until we need it – and then we need it right away.
 According to Young (2014), “the logistics and resource management functions of Emergency Management (refer to as EM logistics) have been largely reactive, with little to no pre-event planning for potential demand”. In other words, capacity building is absent. Where logistics planning has been made a priority, it generally appears in the form of updated contact information and vendor lists painstakingly collated annually. This results in a labour-intensive, redundant, and highly ineffective process and outcome. In the constantly changing and dynamic environment of emergency management, maintaining current information is a significant challenge for even the most advanced organizations.
 Many organizations conduct emergency management planning and preparations from the corner of their desk as they lack the capacity and resources to dedicate full time attention. Directors of Emergency Management (DEMs) regularly build relationships within their sector and engage “contractors through personal relationships and other channels” (KPMG, 2021. P.130). However, major disaster situations remove the DEM from significant logistics functions, leaving other members of the local EM team to fulfil the Logistics responsibilities. Incomplete paper or digital lists with missing information add time and complexity that can result in missed opportunities to mitigate damage to people and property – especially when the logistics functions are being undertaken by people infrequently engaged in crisis situations.
 This article substantiates the need for logistics as a central consideration in building and maintaining networks for connection and collaboration, identifies the value of maintaining comprehensive resource lists as a logistics function, and highlights the significance of building and maintaining local data as part of a solid strategy in preparation for the next disaster situation.
 

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.202 · 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