Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing occurrence of resource development conflict, it is important to understand the bases of the conflicts at a level that is deep enough to afford opportunities for resolution which satisfy the antagonist's concerns. The investment risk to development company shareholders and the opportunity cost to the landowners in the resource development area will only escalate in the absence of this new approach. This paper defines worldview and demonstrates that it has a significant impact on civilizational development. The dominance of Western civilization as a generator of creativity is explored and the role of mining resource development in the formation of those creative societies is demonstrated. A review of western philosophical thought undergirds a survey of literature on economic and social sustainability demonstrating that there are a number of "solitudes" which mirror the underlying worldviews. The hypothesis of this paper is that the point of actual resource development conflict is increasingly found at the deeper level of worldview differences between the antagonists to the conflict and less so at the shallower level of the stated objections. The concept of "worldview" is introduced as a means of synthesizing the deep-seated motives for different actors to take different positions about a particular resource development proposal. © Common Ground, Murray Lytle, Michael Hitch, All Rights Reserved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".