MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406931423 · doi:10.15273/jue.v15i1.12370

Why Rebuild on Toxic, Sinking Ground?: The Challenges for Disaster Recovery in Southeast Louisiana

2025· article· en· W4406931423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Undergraduate Ethnography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As southern Louisiana is experiencing one of the highest rates of sea level rise in the world, it is not uncommon for residents to hear that it is “too late” to save their homes from the impacts of climate change. Particularly, in the wake of disaster events such as hurricanes and oil spills, heavily damaged areas are often left behind in the recovery process as few developers are willing to take the capital risk to rebuild a sinking neighborhood. Still, some of these residents refuse to be moved and their resilient spirit is widely celebrated. Cultural resilience alone, however, is not enough to resist the onslaught of climate disasters nor counter systemic disinvestment in their communities. Through combining historical and ethnographic insights from the Black residents in Cancer Alley, the Vietnamese refugee community in New Orleans East, and the Indigenous tribal members of the Grand Bayou Village, this article argues that marginalized landscapes and livelihoods have been structurally made to become untenable within the economic bounds of disaster recovery. Under these circumstances, Louisiana’s coastal communities continue to assert survivance within precarious environments, offering alternative narratives to blind optimism or defeatism for living in an age of climate crisis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Undergraduate EthnographySame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207