MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311143473 · doi:10.1016/j.exis.2022.101186

Public participation in environmental impact assessment processes through various channels – Can you listen to us now? Lessons from a Brazilian mining case

2022· article· en· W4311143473 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro Bigolin Neto, Alexandra Mallett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Extractive Industries and Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)DemocratizationPublic participationProcess (computing)Public involvementPublic policyEnvironmental impact assessmentCivil societyPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningPublic relationsPoliticsDemocracyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Extractive Industries and SocietySame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207