MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394949145 · doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00555-9

Disaster Awareness and Preparedness Among Older Adults in Canada Regarding Floods, Wildfires, and Earthquakes

2024· article· en· W4394949145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evalyna Bogdan, Rachel Krueger, Julie Wright, Kyle Woods, Shaieree Cottar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessNatural hazardVulnerability (computing)HazardFocus groupResilience (materials science)Natural disasterEmergency managementEnvironmental healthCommunity resiliencePsychological resilienceSocial vulnerabilityGeographyEnvironmental planningMedicinePsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceComputer securityEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Older adults are significantly impacted by natural hazards and disasters that are exacerbated by climate change. Understanding their awareness and preparedness is essential for enhancing disaster resilience. This study investigated the attitudes, actions, and recommendations of older adults regarding natural hazards that pose risks in their geographic area—specifically floods, wildfires, and/or earthquakes in Canada. Methods for this study included survey and focus groups with older adults (n = 161 and n = 10, respectively) and other high-risk groups from across Canada, that are vulnerable to these natural hazards. The main findings from this study are that current awareness and preparedness among older adults is low, though stronger perceptions of risks are associated with risks specific to geographic locations where respondents live. Several barriers, such as hazard vulnerability misperceptions, cost-related reasons, and lack of hazard awareness have resulted in low awareness and preparedness among these populations. The two main recommendations arising from this research are: (1) improve awareness and preparedness with tailor-made emergency preparedness materials for older adults; and (2) adopt community-based approaches to disaster preparedness through existing community groups to strengthen social connections with a focus on locally specific hazards. The findings from this research can be applied to other hazards, including heatwaves and pandemics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Disaster Risk ScienceSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207