MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418748252 · doi:10.14288/1.0042643

Above the coal mines : the evolution of mine reclamation in the United States

2013· article· en· W2418748252 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Harding

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationCoal miningMining engineeringCoalGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to 1977, there was no federal law in the United States that regulated the surface mining aspect of the coal industry. Individual states were responsible for their own regulations and laws. After World War II, most states enacted more stringent post-mining reclamation requirements. By 1965, mine operators were expected to act on their own to restore the land that they mined. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMACRA) established permitting guidelines for existing as well as future mining activities. The purpose of SMCRA is to ensure that coal mining is conducted in an environmentally-responsible manner and that the land is progressively reclaimed during the mining process. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, coal-mining states developed their own programs consistent with SMCRA and were given the primary responsibility to regulate surface coal mining on lands with the federal Office of Surface Mining providing jurisdiction. This paper presents a photographic history of coal mine reclamation as it was practiced from the 1940s to the present day and suggests that through observation of past mine reclamation practices we can develop strategies for future land rehabilitation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207