MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402669356 · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104848

The state of disaster and resilience literature in British Columbia, Canada. A systematic scoping review

2024· article· en· W4402669356 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christopher‐Paul Milne, Taylor Legere, Jonathan Eaton, Sara Shneiderman, Carlos Molina Hutt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsResilience (materials science)State (computer science)Systematic reviewPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningGeographyMEDLINEComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia (BC), Canada is exposed to diverse natural hazards, leading to extensive research into disaster and resilience topics in the province. However, within disaster studies there is commonly siloing of research and knowledge between different fields, hindering integrated risk reduction solutions. This review aims to summarize the current state of disaster and resilience research in BC to provide context for future innovative research and response efforts. A systematic scoping review was used to balance the need for quantitative and qualitative analysis. 24 databases were systematically searched, and additional records were added from a Google Scholar scan and recommendations from disaster researchers. In total 4403 records were screened, of which 343 documents were analyzed. 87% of documents named a natural hazard type/s as the primary subject matter, while 13% discussed disaster and resilience more generally. Earthquakes were the most frequently discussed hazard, while storm/weather and drought were the least. STEM disciplines published the most on the reviewed themes (73% of documents). A spatial disjuncture was found between locations discussed in the literature versus historic BC disaster trends. Overall, there were several hazards, scales and disciplines that were underrepresented. Furthermore, there was a trend towards application of methods and findings primarily to inform global conversations, missing opportunities to provide local or regional recommendations, or deeper acknowledgements of cultural and historical contexts. This review highlights strengths and gaps in the current disaster and resilience publications in BC and adds to the growing literature on the importance of interdisciplinary and place-based disaster research. • Earthquakes are the most commonly published-upon hazard type in BC. • STEM-associated disciplines are predominant in the literature. • Clear definitions of disaster or resilience are infrequent in the literature. • Literature hazard and location trends differ from historic BC disaster trends. • BC policy suggestions are limited despite strong empirical basis to inform them.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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