MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consultation, the Way Forward

2013· article· en· W2275869309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken Haddow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy & Natural Resources Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeConventionPublic relationsPolitical scienceLatin AmericansKey (lock)International lawBusinessLawPublic administrationPsychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between companies intending to carry out mining projects and communities impacted by those projects is vital. Among the main mechanisms aimed at ensuring a successful relationship with the people affected by a project, consultation is key. The evolution of consultation has been diverse in different parts of the world and involves general consultation rights and obligations. The law and practice for consulting communities used around the globe have been created and regulated in different ways (eg, treaties in Canada, International Labour Organization Convention No 169 in Latin America, etc). The questions this article addresses are: What is the way forward to ensure consultation yields positive results? Is it finding the right definition and framework for consultative engagement? Or is it something else? This article proposes the latter.

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 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy & Natural Resources LawSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207