Communicating potential hazards to homeless populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project explores the communication relationship between Canadian emergency planners, homeless service providers and homeless populations. During the literary review, which had a significant amount of content from the United States, three themes emerged. First, emergency managers rely heavily on service providers to communicate with homeless communities. Secondly, service providers require training and assistance from emergency management professionals. Thirdly, there is some uncertainty as to who is responsible for communication with homeless populations in the event of an emergency. Questionnaires were sent to both Canadian emergency managers and service providers across the country (N=30), nine were completed and returned. The data received were compared to the three themes from the literary review and it appears to be consistent. Canadian emergency planners rely heavily on service providers; some service providers need assistance in developing business continuity plans and training on what to do in the event of an emergency; and, there is some confusion as to who is actually responsible for communication with homeless communities in the event of a disaster. Recommendations include further research in order to develop a Canadian document of best practices for emergency planners across Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".