Virginia's Moratorium: Is Uranium Mining on the Horizon in the Commonwealth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
was formed by owners of the Coles Hill property in Pittsylvania.8 VUI's current primary goal is to have the uranium moratorium lifted so that uranium mining can begin in earnest in Virginia.9 This Note addresses the current moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia, arguing that the moratorium should not be lifted.Further, this Note analyzes the costs and benefits of uranium mining in Virginia from three perspectives: public health, environmental quality, and economic effects.Finally, recognizing that the moratorium could be lifted based upon potential economic benefits, this Note proposes a regulatory framework which should be instituted.This Note contains five parts.Part I gives a brief technical description of the uranium mining and milling process, as well as a brief history of the practice in the United States.Part II details a brief history of uranium discovery in Virginia and describes the reasons the moratorium was placed on mining the ore in 1982 and still has not been lifted.It also explains the developments that have led to the push for lifting the moratorium in the past few years.Part III examines the potential effects of uranium mining on three distinct areas of concern: the public health, the environment, and the economic climate of Virginia.Part IV discusses the complex federal regulatory framework currently governing uranium mining in the United States and examines two particularly relevant regulation schemes, the Coloradan and Canadian schemes, and their viability in Virginia.Part V concludes with the argument that Virginia's capacity to regulate uranium mining is not sufficient to merit lifting the moratorium.Additionally, recognizing the possibility that the moratorium could be lifted, this Part proposes a regulatory framework should the moratorium be lifted.I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".