MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mineral Project Disclosure Standards—an Assessment of Recent Canadian Experience

2002· article· en· W2562798960 on OpenAlexaffabout
John M. Sibley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy & Natural Resources Law · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingBusinessInterpretation (philosophy)Mineral resource classificationMineralResource (disambiguation)Political scienceComputer scienceGeochemistryGeologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the aftermath of the Bre-X scandal, Canadian securities regulators introduced a new regime for mineral project disclosure. National Instrument 43–101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43–101’), was implemented in February2001. NI 43–101 substantially changed Canadian requirements for the public reporting and disclosure of mineral exploration, resource and reserve information. In its first year, NI 43–101 has triggered a number of applications for regulatory relief and prompted the issuance of new interpretive guidance from the Canadian regulators. This article provides an overview of NI 43–101 and the approach taken by the Canadian regulators in its interpretation and application to date.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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