Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining claim disputes in Québec generally arise either when more than one staker carries out simultaneous stakings on the ground or when one or more stakers, while disputing the validity of a claim already recorded, under The Mining Act, stake the same piece of ground. Applications for record that give rise to a dispute are referred to the Minister of Energy and Resources. He may in turn refer the case to the Mining Judge. If he chooses not to do so, an appeal of his decision, by the party whose claims are refused or cancelled, lies with the Mining Judge. Decisions of the Mining Judge may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Provisions of The Mining Act relating to the method ot staking are compulsory and entail, for instance, that block staking is illegal and that staking must be done personally. If the staker of a recorded claim has not staked his claim according to the Act and has declared in his notice of staking that he followed the Act, then the claim was recorded under misrepresentation and may be cancelled. However, a limitation exists in favour of a third-party holder in good faith when the claim has been recorded in his name for a year. Under the doctrine of substantial compliance, the staker may depart from the staking provisions of the Act in varying degree according to circumstances requirements. Applications of the doctrine to various situations of fact include non substantial discrepancies as to the area of the claim or the location of posts. Disputes may also relate to forfeiture and the re-opening of the land to staking. One may also dispute his own claims in order to prevent others from eventually disputing them if the claims had not been initially well staked. In the adjudicating process, it is important for the staker to be present at the hearing lest the other party be favoured. Disputes have provided for a better understanding of the Act's staking provisions. However, some drawbacks of the system would warrant changes to the Act for purposes of efficacy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.001 |
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".