Openness, transparency and public participation in the governance of uranium mining in Greenland: a legal and political track record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines the implementation of the principles of openness, transparency and public participation in the decision-making regarding the conditions for uranium mining in Greenland from a legal and political perspective. The time frame covers the period from the exploration for minerals before World War II to 2016–2017 when the current Greenlandic authorities prepared a licence for a project of extraction of rare earth elements and uranium in Kvanefjeld. It is shown that the issue of openness, transparency and public participation in Greenland is a longstanding issue and that the current governance does not permit public access to a draft environmental impact assessment report, impairing public participation in decision-making, and preventing the environmental consequences of these activities from being considered as a public concern. It is argued that sovereignty–its consolidation and the accession to it–has impacted the design of governance in Greenland and that the constraints put on the full implementation of the legal principles of openness, transparency and public participation in the governance of uranium mining in Greenland, amongst other factors, point to a current hybrid political and legal order in the context of a political agenda of independence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".