The state of disaster and resilience literature in British Columbia, Canada. A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.072 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".