Social impact assessment in the Russian Federation: does it meet the key values of democracy and civil society?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary social impact assessment (SIA) is rooted in the concepts of civil society and democracy. We analyse whether SIA as practiced in the Russian Federation as part of environmental impact assessment (EIA) is consistent with the key values of civil society and democracy. We consider whether the Russian EIA requirements enable preparation of meaningful assessments that effectively contribute to the decision-making processes that affect people's lives. We review the Rsussian EIA legislation and its requirements for SIA and social baseline, and consider the EIA/SIA practice undertaken in response to these requirements. We specifically analyse the Karmen coal mining project in South Yakutia. We compare the EIA documents completed according to national requirements against the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) documents prepared to be consistent with international standards, as defined by the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards. We conclude that the national requirements for SIA in Russia and the way they are implemented do not encourage the development of meaningful SIAs that comply with the key concepts and social values of SIA, civil society and democracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".