MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147846376 · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-38.1.40

Using Performance Indicators to Evaluate an Environmental Education Program in Artisanal Gold Mining Communities in the Brazilian Amazon

2009· article· en· W2147846376 on OpenAlexaff
Rodolfo N. Sousa, Marcello M. Veiga

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazon rainforestMercury (programming language)Gold miningMERCURY EXPOSUREEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental scienceSocioeconomicsEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tapajos River Basin in the Brazilian Amazon is the location of one of the largest concentrations of artisanal and small-scale miners in the world. Today, 40,000 miners produce 8 t of gold annum(-1) and at least double this amount of mercury is released into the environment. This region was selected under the Global Mercury Project, a United Nations program that aims to reduce the environmental and health impacts caused by mercury through the application of cleaner technologies and increased awareness. A group of educators provided support to miners, training 4200 people in 141 mining locations. The effectiveness of this training was evaluated based on 20 performance indicators. After 120 days of training, an absolute improvement of approximately 29% had been achieved. As a result of this training, it is estimated that annual mercury emissions in Tapajos have been reduced by 1762 kg or around 10% of the total mercury released in the region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207