An examination of best practices for mine site reclamation: an investigation of Ontario's recent environmental assessment cases where reclamation is expected
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining can have significant public health and environmental consequences such as deforestation, waste rock deposition, and toxic mine effluents. Standards for reclamation of Ontario mine sites are not clear as there is no received model. A strong policy framework is essential to develop a mine closure system that protects the environment. An Environmental Assessment is the first stage for reclamation investigation. By setting standards for reclamation, projects that complete an Environmental Assessment will be better prepared to meet environmental protection objectives. Based on determined objectives, the best practice for mine site reclamations must include: restoration of soils, systematic revegetation, reclamation of water and wildlife restoration through habitat formation. Based on the results, Ontario is ahead of the provinces evaluated for environmental reclamation. None of the countries reviewed have a firm policy on reclamation. The results demonstrate a high number of reclamation components not being evaluated at the environmental assessment level.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".