MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412723684 · doi:10.3368/le.102.1.111324-0107r

Protecting Against Flood Impacts

2025· article· en· W4412723684 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLand Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of AlbertaBrock UniversityPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlood mythEnvironmental scienceBusinessGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Abstract</h3> As the threat of flooding intensifies, the need for policies that align with household preferences for addressing flood risk becomes increasingly important. We conducted a discrete choice experiment to elicit homeowner preferences for purchasing overland flood insurance and/or making risk-reducing home improvements. Results from a latent class logit model indicate the presence of four preference classes, characterized by their preferred response to flood risk: insurance, home improvements, insurance and home improvements, and neither insurance nor home improvements. We subsequently evaluate household responses to insurance and home-improvement subsidies, offering insights into the effectiveness of incentives for encouraging protective actions against flooding.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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