Dilemmas of Development: The Social and Economic Impact of the Porgera Gold Mine, 1989-1994
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this volume is to publish, and thus to publicise,\nthe factual material contained in a series of consultancy reports\ncommissioned by the Porgera Joint Venture (PJV) between 1992 and\n1994 (Banks 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Bonnell 1994). These reports\ndealt with the social and economic impact of the Porgera gold mine on\nthe population of the Porgera Valley during the period which had\nelapsed since the Government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) signed a\nMining Development Contract with the PJV in April 1989. They were\ncommissioned as part of what became known as the Porgera Social\nMonitoring Programme, which was itself intended to satisfy some of\nthe conditions which the PNG Department of Environment and\nConservation (DEC) had attached to its approval of the company's\nEnvironmental Plan (NSR 1988) and Environmental Management and\nMonitoring Programme(PJV 1991). The substance of these reports has\nbeen revised and edited to form Chapters 2-7 of the present volume.\nThe last two chapters have been specially commissioned from two\nother social scientists who have studied the social impact of the\nmining project, and who were asked to provide their own comments\non the design, management and output of the Porgera Social\nMonitoring Programme.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".