Local Community Perceptions of Mine Site Restoration Using Phytoremediation in Abitibi-Temiscamingue (Quebec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores factors supporting people perception about mine site restoration and phytoremediation. Phytoremediation is one of the most eco-friendly restoration strategy emerged since the last two decades but studies on local people perception on this restoration strategy are scarce. To fill in this gap, data were collected from mining stakeholders using a structured questionnaire administered through snowball sampling method. We used Multiple Correspondence Analysis as implemented in the software XLSTAT to visualize relationship between participants' characteristics, their view on mine site restoration and phytoremediation. Results clearly show out that people perception on mine site restoration is influenced by mining activities effects on health and region attractiveness. Phytoremediation (65.21%) was rated positively with regard to its environment potential, aesthetic and consideration for future generation followed by fillings and excavating. Restoration strategy costs have no effect on people choice and participants prefer use of shrubs as vegetation component of phytoremediation to reach their restoration objective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".