MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175564081 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2021v46n2a3781

Staking a Claim: Mineral Mining, Prospecting Logics, and Settler Infrastructures

2021· article· en· W3175564081 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hannah Tollefson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectingColonialismPoliticsIntervention (counseling)Political scienceBusinessLawEngineeringMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Various jurisdictions around the world have adopted online mineral staking platforms, designed to create a seamless process for acquiring mineral rights. This article considers how territory is mediated through staking practices and emerging digital prospecting procedures by tracing the implementation of Mineral Titles Online, Canada’s first web-based mineral title interface. Analysis: The article draws on archival materials, explores legal cases, and analyzes the staking application to examine how this practice reconstructs settler colonial logics. Conclusion and implications: The staking application operates as an infrastructure of ongoing colonial extractivism, yet is open to various forms of political intervention—as demonstrated by communities who undermine its intended use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207