“The quarry proposed by St Marys Cement Inc. for a location near Carlisle, Ontario should not be permitted” : Proponents’ Brief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a set of arguments claiming that construction of the quarry near Flamborough, Ontario proposed St. Mary’s Cement Inc. should not be permitted. First, the quarry would violate local citizens’ property rights, compromise community health and safety, and incur excessive economic costs. Precautionary measures are insufficient, such that the quarry is expected to irreparably damage drinking water and quality of life. Second, the area proposed for aggregate extraction is mostly undeveloped, containing unique, valuable natural features and ecological linkages. Despite regulation and monitoring according to the provincial Aggregate Resources Act, rehabilitation of the site after aggregate extraction would be inadequate in returning the land to its former condition. This will result in habitat fragmentation and loss of high quality farmland. Furthermore, the construction of the quarry is not permitted under current City of Hamilton zoning regulations; the City of Hamilton, along with the city’s Public Health Services, filed an official objection against construction. Finally, a GIS study has selected a more suitable alternative site for aggregate extraction near Carlisle, which meets the geographic, topographic, and mineral needs of St. Mary’s Cement Group without disturbing habitat or nearby communities.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".