MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1465583241

Possible mercury poisoning in alluvial gold miners in the Porgera Valley, Papua New Guinea

2002· article· en· W1465583241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cathy Reto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and tropical public health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacer miningJoint ventureAlluviumPlacer depositNew guineaProspectingArchaeologyMining engineeringGeologyGeographyHistoryGeochemistryEthnologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1938, alluvial gold was first reported at Porgera and local prospecting began. By 1975, Placer (PNG) Pty. Limited became the operator of a joint venture with Mount Isa Mines Ltd (MIM). The Porgera Joint Venture gold mine (PJV) is now 50% owned by Placer Pacific, an Australian company whose major partner is Placer Dome, Canada. Built at 2700 m above sea level in rugged mountains, the operation is one of the world's largest modern mines using the latest mining technology developed. The mine is located 200 km west of Mt. Hagen in the remote Enga Province in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea (Peak undated). During the exploration and construction in the 1980s and early production days in the early 1990s, the mine experienced a lot of national and international criticism for environmental damage. One of the most detailed reports done on Porgera as a notorious company responsible for environmental damage was 'The Porgera File: Adding to Australia's Legacy of Destruction' by Philip Shearman (1995), a consultant with ICRAF. After this embarrassing exposure and others that followed (Kennedy 1996; Apte 2001), the mine has come a long way and now uses the latest technologies that are more environmental friendly.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and tropical public healthSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207