The stone forum: Implementing a consensus building methodology to address impacts associated with small mining and quarry operations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small‐scale mining, including quarry operations, continues to play an important social and economic role in hundreds of communities throughout Brazil. Often operating outside the formal economy, conflicts between the owners of small‐scale mining operations, the mineworkers, various government agencies, and other stakeholders have contributed to the progressive degradation of the environment, poor health and safety standards, and low productivity. The Centre for Mineral Technology (CETEM) of Brazil is implementing a consensus building methodology in order to produce dimension stone by small‐scale miners on a more sustainable basis in the Pádua region, located in the northwest of the State of Rio de Janeiro. The approach being used by CETEM is based on its own experience in working with gold prospectors in the Amazon, and lessons and experiences learned from Canadian officials and industry representatives. The lessons and insights gained from this project may prove to be useful to those involved in addressing similar problems elsewhere in Brazil, South America and around the world.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it