PROTOCOL: The Impact of Relocation Processes on Populations Facing Socio‐Territorial Inequities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relocation processes are increasingly considered local adaptations to flooding. While relocation can offer many benefits, it also leads to socio-economic and socio-psychological consequences. Moreover, it tends to place greater pressure on populations experiencing socio-territorial inequities compared to other households. It is therefore important to assess the direct and indirect impacts of relocation to consider its application from a more just and equitable perspective. The objective of this scoping review is to document the impacts of flood-induced residential relocation processes on populations facing socio-territorial inequities in North America and Europe. It also seeks to categorize the challenges faced by planners in relocation processes. This will help us better assess the relevance of relocation as an adaptation measure to climate change for populations facing socio-territorial inequities. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the methodological guide JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris and Munn 2020). A systematic search will first be developed in collaboration with an expert librarian. Five databases will be searched: Erudit, Cairn, Web of Science, GreenFILE (EBSCO), and GeoBase (Engineering Village). Gray literature will be collected from Policy Commons, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Google Scholar, Google, and relevant governmental websites. A screening of the studies and documents obtained will then be carried out by two independent reviewers to retain the relevant documents for the scoping review. If needed, the involvement of a third reviewer will be solicited. The data relevant to our question will then be extracted, using a tool created by the authors, and then analyzed and presented in narrative and tabular formats. The results of this scoping review will be used to discuss and share insights and lessons learned. It will allow us to draw conclusions on the impacts of residential relocation processes on populations facing socio-territorial inequities and to identify best practices for land-use planning in the context of climate change.
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 | 0.090 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.024 |
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".