MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulatory requirements for reclamation and closure planning at Alberta’s oil sands mines

2011· article· en· W2968092169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanya Richens, Brett G. Purdy

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationEnvironmental resource managementOil sandsGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningWork (physics)Environmental scienceBusinessEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All oil sands mine operators are required to conserve and reclaim land disturbed for their operations, and to obtain a reclamation certificate under Alberta Environment (AENV)’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). Each operator is given specific operating approval conditions related to conservation, reclamation and closure activities. Other conditions identify what plans and reports must be submitted and authorised by AENV prior to implementation. AENV works closely with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, the government department whose mandate includes managing forest resources, biodiversity, fish and wildlife. Using an adaptive management approach in response to new knowledge and technology, EPEA approval conditions are updated over time with changes specific to expectations associated with soil salvage and placement, wetland reclamation, annual reporting, and closure plan development, amongst other things. Since three major oil sands mine public hearings held in 2006, AENV has clarified expectations by updating approval conditions, providing industry specific templates for reporting, developing consistent and clear definitions, and defining a table of contents for upcoming reclamation and closure plan updates. Future reclamation plans and reports submitted to AENV by the operators will include data in a common geodatabase (GIS) format. Work is ongoing within the Government of Alberta to develop a comprehensive geodatabase for the mineable oil sands region, which will make information more easily accessible to regulators, industry, and the public. This paper will highlight the regulatory requirements related to conservation and reclamation activities at the oil sands mines, including but not limited to soil salvage, storage, and placement, revegetation, wildlife and biodiversity, and wetlands. The paper will focus on the recent efforts made by the regulators to ensure consistent and clear expectations surrounding submission of reclamation and closure plans as well as annual reporting requirements. A summary of the current status of the tree clearing, land disturbance and reclamation activities associated with the oil sands mines will be presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMine closureSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207