Disaster Resilience and Complex Adaptive Systems Theory- Finding Common Grounds for Risk Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of resilience into the contemporary discourse of disaster risk. As a counter position to the current status quo in defining and addressing resilience, this paper introduces the theoretical lens of complex adaptive systems theory (CAS). Some of the key characterisitcs related to CAS are discussed and linkages are made to possible benefit that they might have in enhancing the understanding of disaster resilience. Design/methodology/approach – An indepth review of literature pertaining to disaster resilience and CAS was conducted to find common grounds for theoretical synergies. Findings – The inherent similarities between the concept of resilience and CAS provides ample practical and theoretical contributions to the field of disaster risk studies. Originality/value – The paper provides a different perspective to the contemporary discourse on disaster resilience. A better understanding of disaster resilience and its underlying dynamics as illuminated by the application of CAS could in future provide an effective tool to manage disaster risks and building of resilience.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".