Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.002 |
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".