MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998582396 · doi:10.1051/metal/2014008

Prospects for sustainability certification of metals

2014· article· en· W1998582396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMetallurgical Research & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationSustainabilityBusinessProduct certificationCommodityAuditEnvironmental economicsAccountingFinanceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certification initiatives are product-focused, rely on standards and use sustainability metrics to inform end-users on the provenance of commodities. In the metals sector, the phenomenon of formal certification programs has recently gained traction. Four initiatives are reviewed to illustrate the status and prospects of metal certification. The prime case is the Conflict Free Smelter Program operated by the global electronics industry. This scheme has developed and applied standards on mineral chain-of-custody, including use of third-parties to audit smelters and refineries all over the world. Additional programs discussed are the Green Lead Project, Fair Trade and Fair Mined gold, and the Responsible Jewellery Council. Collectively these initiatives address a variety of sustainability criteria, including social, economic and environmental dimensions, but focus only on precious and specialty metals (Au, platinum group, Pb, Sn, Ta and W). Metals certifications programs are building capacity and infrastructure compared to mature programs in agriculture and other commodity sectors. Opportunities and issues for growth of metals certification are considered.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.326 · 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