MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412952563 · doi:10.25071/gz1kfx32

General Morphological Analysis in Public Health Emergency Management: An Environmental Scan

2025· article· en· W4412952563 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthEmergency managementBusinessEnvironmental planningMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthMedicineEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Uncertainty is inherent in public health emergency management (PHEM) due to the unpredictable nature of emergencies and interplay of public health threats and their drivers. PHEM practitioners must continually develop and adapt methods to manage this uncertainty. General morphological analysis (GMA) is a computer-aided scenario modelling method that effectively addresses issues where uncertainty exists. GMA examines possible components of a complex problem and allows practitioners to consider potential connections and outcomes. Through iterative steps, GMA can generate new knowledge and insights in the development of scenarios to aid in decision-making and planning within PHEM. Method: An environmental scan was designed to identify articles that utilized GMA as one of the primary methodologies across different natural hazards within the context of PHEM. Academic databases included PubMed and Research Gate. A broad search strategy was applied to scan grey literature which included Google Scholar. Results: This environmental scan identified ten examples of GMA employed in PHEM across multiple countries and organizations. Examples in the literature targeted either a specific natural hazard or broadly targeted all known natural hazards. The findings can be divided into three interconnected categories: (a) scenario modelling for managing natural disasters, (b) strategy development and prioritization tools, and (c) decision-making support tools for emergency management teams. Conclusions: GMA is a decision-making and planning tool in PHEM that can be extended beyond scenario modelling to address uncertainties. This modelling method leverages subject matter experts to uncover innovative connections and outcomes when navigating complex problems like those observed within PHEM. Future research can involve applying GMA to PHEM in a Canadian context. Currently, the Public Health Agency of Canada is applying GMA to cyclical events (e.g., wildfires, floods, extreme heat events, and extreme weather events) to create scenarios using a PHEM lens. Future practice should involve integrating GMA with other PHEM methodologies to enhance strategies to prevent, prepare, respond and recover from future public health emergencies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.279 · 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