Disasters classification in a compound event perspective: insights from existing databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural disasters often result from compound event dynamics, in which multiple interacting drivers converge across spatial and temporal scales, significantly amplifying their impacts. The concept of compound events has gained increasing attention in recent literature, offering opportunities to enhance disaster understanding, while also presenting challenges and open issues for modern risk assessment frameworks. This study investigates the capability of existing disasters/extreme events databases (Emergency Events Database EM-DAT, Severe Weather Data Inventory SWDI, and Canadian Disaster Database CDD) to capture compound event dynamics, and assess the accuracy of reported impacts. We found that SWDI, a national dataset for the USA, reports a high number of compound events versus single events, always higher than 50%, except for wildfires, and its structure allows for accurately identify spatially compounding events. This percentage in EM-DAT, a global dataset, is always lower than 50%, except for storms. A good match in events occurrences can be observed between the three databases, however the agreement in terms of deaths and injures varies depending on the databases compared. Finally, the work highlights the limitations of existing databases in representing the multidimensional nature of risks, and the cascading impacts that emerge from compound hazards. Reclassifying disasters from a compound event perspective not only enriches our knowledge of hazard dynamics, but also provides actionable pathways for improving risk assessment, informing adaptive policies, and enhancing resilience to the growing complexity of environmental challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".