Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reclaimed landscapes at open pit mines are often quite different than the landscape prior to mine development. Planned land use at mine closure is typically an important component of mine reclamation regulations, but how these land uses are distributed and their proportion on the reclaimed landscape may have changed from the previous condition. What must be critically assessed is how the proposed land uses of the reclaimed landscape will provide the resources required to meet the end user’s values of the land. This requires both a thorough assessment of the cultural values of the people who will use the landscape (and may have used the landscape prior to mining) and an understanding of those ecological components of the landscape that provide the services to support these values. Using the example of Fort McKay First Nation’s traditional lands that are situated in the centre of Canada’s oil sands mining developments, this paper investigates the linkages between Fort McKay First Nation’s values that are connected to cultural activities and the components of the reclaimed landscapes that will be necessary to provide the opportunity to conduct these activities. We examine, from a landscape ecology perspective, how mine reclamation plans can incorporate all of the necessary landscape elements and appropriate spatial heterogeneity that are related to the ecological processes required to achieve the land use objectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".