MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mining with communities

2001· article· en· W2074837079 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resources Forum · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitalitySustainabilityClosure (psychology)Equity (law)Environmental planningBusinessSustainable communityEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceGeographyEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To be considered as sustainable, a mining community needs to adhere to the principles of ecological sustainability, economic vitality and social equity. These principles apply over a long time span, covering both the life of the mine and post‐mining closure. The legacy left by a mine to the community after its closure is emerging as a significant aspect of its planning. Progress towards sustainability is made when value is added to a community with respect to these principles by the mining operation during its life cycle. This article presents a series of cases to demonstrate the diverse potential challenges to achieving a sustainable mining community. These case studies of both new and old mining communities are drawn mainly from Canada and from locations abroad where Canadian companies are now building mines. The article concludes by considering various approaches that can foster sustainable mining communities and the role of community consultation and capacity building.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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