MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250433810 · doi:10.21083/surg.v5i1.1339

“The quarry proposed by St Marys Cement Inc. for a location near Carlisle, Ontario should not be permitted”: Opponent Brief

2011· article· en· W4250433810 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Evan Bracken, Leah D. Grant, Alexander Marit, Joshua Nasielski, Sarah Smith, Victoria Yang, Glenn Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNIMBYOpposition (politics)CementYardAggregate (composite)CliffCivil engineeringSociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningLawHistoryArchaeologyEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quarry proposed to extract Amabel formation Dolostone by the St. Marys Cement Inc. near Flamborough, Ontario should be implemented based on the arguments of this paper. The quality of the aggregate material, as well as the quantity that St. Marys Cement Inc. hopes to extract would supply enough building material for all of Ontario for nearly two years. However, the construction of the quarry has been strongly opposed by a local community group, Friends of Rural Communities and the Environment (FORCE). The major concerns raised by FORCE have already been addressed by St. Marys Cement Inc., and any further opposition from the community is either based on misinformation provided by FORCE and/or a “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) mentality. “NIMBY-ism” is a selfish, unjustified hindrance to the process of achieving the most efficient outcome for society, an outcome where the needs of the greater good (in this case, aggregate) are fulfilled. The residents of Flamborough and the surrounding area must acknowledge that they too require aggregate material for their roads, houses, and buildings, and that FORCE’s arguments are not for the community or the environment’s wellbeing, but are a front for a NIMBY mentality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0160.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0270.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207