MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415175542 · doi:10.1002/cl2.70072

PROTOCOL: The Impact of Relocation Processes on Populations Facing Socio‐Territorial Inequities: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4415175542 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascale Chagnon, Audate Pierre‐Paul, Geneviève Cloutier, Marianne Demers‐Desmarais

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec
FundersMitacs
KeywordsRelocationCategorizationRelevance (law)Adaptation (eye)NarrativeNarrative review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.503
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.031 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207