MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889674701 · doi:10.25946/27253179

Incorporating First Nations Knowledges in Local Disaster Management Plans: A Comparative Analysis of 82 LGAs

2023· other· en· W6889674701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCentral Queensland University · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDisaster risk reductionEmergency managementRisk managementDisaster responseAction (physics)Disaster research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The socio-economic and human costs from disaster risks in Australia are forecast to rise steeply through 2050. It is increasingly urgent that individuals and communities develop skills, resiliency, and capacity to take action for better risk reduction and management over the long-term. This is critical for Indigenous communities in regional and remote locations who reside at the interfaces closest to sever disaster risks and who are often least able to respond rapidly. However, while research and international frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Risk Reduction (2015-2030) have identified the necessity of inclusiveness for effective disaster management, policies and agencies have thus far failed to clearly integrate local and Indigenous contexts and practices into planning and response strategies. Better “listening” to, and learning from, Indigenous lived experiences is of paramount importance to move this agenda forward and facilitate the mental shifts required to mobilize policy and practice. As part of a larger project on disaster management in Australian Indigenous communities, several case studies were undertaken to identify trends in inclusive, community-led, disaster management methods. This paper presents preliminary findings using two of the cases as comparative examples of “better listening” – including a remote community in north island of New Zealand and a regional community in Victoria, Australia. The research was conducted using qualitative, semi-structured interviews during 2022-23; in-person and digitally. Transcriptions were thematically analysed using NVivo. The study found that the crucial elements for developing and implementing successful community-led disaster management were: to identify key community partners; to build long-term relationships of trust, genuine consultation and partnerships well before disasters strike through extensive “listening work”; listening to, and acting on, what the community needs while preparing for a disaster; and incorporating community-specific response and recovery plans through continuous engagement and revision of strategies in conjunction with genuine “listening”.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentral Queensland UniversityFrench-language works237,207