MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990471167 · doi:10.1504/ijram.2007.014098

Mine reclamation bonding and environmental insurance

2007· article· en· W1990471167 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Poulin, Michel Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mineral extraction is normally followed by rehabilitation of the mined area. A growing number of jurisdictions are using environmental bonding to provide financial assurance that rehabilitation will be carried out as agreed at the permitting stage. The current practice in environmental bonding for mining is critically reviewed. In theory, it is an efficient economic enforcement mechanism but has shown shortcomings in its application. Elements of a solution are identified through the emergence of environmental insurance. The use of insurance as a complement to bonding could prove beneficial by creating a useful framework and by reducing the risk for the public and the environment. We propose a simple model showing how risk could be quantified.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and ManagementSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207