MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153771186 · doi:10.1007/s13563-021-00260-9

The road to societal trust: implementation of Towards Sustainable Mining in Finland and Spain

2021· article· en· W3153771186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela Lesser

Bibliographic record

VenueMineral Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 SocietyHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeLapin YliopistoEuropean Commission
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Convergence (economics)Corporate governanceTrustworthinessSustainable developmentBusinessNarrativePublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomicsComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In government, industry and academia, there is a convergence of three trends: (1) the belief that responsible exploration and mining should increase across Europe, (2) industry should follow and ‘Europeanise’ international good practices and (3) a social licence to operate exists not only between a community and a company but also between society and industry. There are two examples in Europe where these trends are converging—Finland and Spain have both adopted the Canadian Toward Sustainable Mining (TSM) program, but the method of implementation is very different. As a result of Talvivaara, Finland took a network governance approach incorporating trust-building measures from the beginning by bringing diverse stakeholders together to create the Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining. Spain chose to integrate the TSM into their national standards, a more traditional and hierarchical approach but one that also relies on a trustworthy entity with clear longevity. Although implementation is in the early stages in both countries, and therefore this paper provides insights only on preliminary outcomes, results indicate that the network approach may not be better at achieving societal SLO suggesting that other factors such as narrative, dialoguing directly with society, implementing trust-building measures in a timely fashion and proven longevity may have more influence than early trust-building measures between network participants.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineral EconomicsSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207