Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop Closure Criteria in Tropical Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Northern Land Council is one of a number of similar statutory bodies created by the Australian Federal Government upon implementation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976. One of its more important functions is to act as a land manager on behalf of Australian Aborigines living in the northern part of Australia’s Northern Territory on Aboriginal freehold land. The ultimate and desirable outcome for rehabilitating exhausted mines is to leave the affected land in a state that has future value for use by subsequent generations. For companies to meet this goal, and ensure that stakeholder satisfaction is obtained, consultation with land owners prior to mine closure is essential. Although best practice now dictates that planning for closure should be undertaken at the commencement of the mining phase, this was often not done and represents a problem for older mines now facing closure. This paper describes practical means that have ensured effective consultation and achieved acceptable levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Achieving stakeholder satisfaction requires that traditional ecological knowledge is included in the mine closure process. Results demonstrate that both aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people perceive that there is a role for traditional ecological knowledge, not only for development of closure criteria, but throughout the environmental impact assessment process. A means by which this information can be obtained in a culturally sensitive manner, and used in conjunction with western science to achieve a mutually acceptable long-term outcome for mine rehabilitation, is presented. Outcomes are compared to those from systems in place in Canada and New Zealand, and barriers to success in Australia are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".