MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339279452 · doi:10.21000/jasmr02010961

LONG TERM LAND USE PLANNING FOR DRASTICALLY DISTURBED LAND

2002· article· en· W2339279452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas J. Nieman, Zina R. Merkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal American Society of Mining and Reclamation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Land useLand-use planningEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of planning for use of surface mined land after the cessation of coal mining in Kentucky has been mixed and varied. While a great deal of “developable” or relatively flat land has been created, little has actually been used for the purposes intended. In the early 1980s planning was begun for the 17,000 acre Star Fire mountain top removal mining site with the intention of utilizing it for an assortment of land uses from industrial, to residential, to wildlife refuge. By the early 1990s the wildlife portion of the master plan was achieved with the introduction of Canada geese and later an elk population. In the mid 1990s Cyprus Minerals sold Star Fire to Addington Resources, and planning and development appeared to have been abandoned. By 1998, with proposals to develop a 500megawatt power plant designed to burn waste coal, the planning process was revived. Plans are now in progress to provide utilities and an entryway into the site through state and private cooperation. The prospects for the long-term development of a large-scale project are positive. The major issue here is that long term planning should be viewed as just that, long term. Not a lot will be achieved unless all of the considerable number of pieces are brought together at the correct moment. However, if the initial planning to construct land forms for future use had not been undertaken development would not have been possible. Additional

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal American Society of Mining and ReclamationSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207