Evaluating Alternate Post-Mining Land-Uses: A Review
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
<p>The ultimate objective of post-mine land-use and reclamation planning is to identify appropriate alternate land uses to which mined land could be put. This will ensure that land-use and morphology of the location will be capable of supporting either the prior land-use or pre-mining environment. The main challenge is usually, the choice of variables that must be considered in deciding a particular post-mining land-use. Literature reviews were conducted to identify the major factors needed to be considered in the selection of a post-mining land-use. This paper also looks at the most commonly practiced and accepted post-mining land-use techniques. Factors identified as important in the selection process include land resources (e.g. physical, biological and cultural characteristics), ownership, type of mining activity, legal requirements, location, needs of the community, economic, environmental, technical and social factors. In a broad categorization, all post-mining land-uses could be placed under one of the following land-use: agriculture, forestry, lake or pool, intensive recreational land-use, non-intensive recreational land-use, conservation and pit backfilling. However, the objective of any particular post-mining land use should be achieving economic and sustainable outcomes which meet human wants and needs, and protect life and the environment.</p>
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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