Assessment for sustainable development: Theoretical framework and application to the mining sector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With particular reference to mining projects, this chapter discusses how assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the planning and decision- making process is directed towards sustainable development (SD)/ sustainability. It is organised into two main parts. First, the literature is reviewed to identify the features commonly promoted for enhancing impact assessment as a decision-support tool in support of SD, in other words, sustainability assessment (SA). Second, this theoretical framework is evaluated in relation to the mining sector by establishing the extent to which its features have been applied to mining projects in Canada, Namibia and South Africa. In this analysis, particular lessons are drawn with regard to the concept of ‘strategicness’, which, together with ‘comprehensiveness’ and ‘integratedness’, is a key feature that distinguishes SA from established forms of assessment.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it