New opportunities for collaborative closure planning in Canadian regulatory frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental approval of major projects was transferred to the newly created Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) in 2019, bringing into being the Impact Assessment Act (SC 2019, c 28, s 1). The Act represents the first time that conspicuous consideration of impacts to Indigenous rights have been legislated as part of the Environmental Assessment process for major projects in Canada. In the province of British Columbia (BC), the joint federal and provincial application is now seeing its first successful applicants move through this new legislation. Under IAAC, there is also an increased expectation of and emphasis on collaboration with impacted Indigenous groups—a change from the recent standard of consultation and the development of Impact or Mutual Benefit Agreements. On one hand, an increased focus on collaboration can appear to constrain operators’ independent decision-making capacity and corresponding timeframes for mine life planning, including progressive reclamation, closure, and returning land use possibilities. On the other, a focus on collaborative and mutually beneficial outcomes allows for the development of integrated closure plans and post-closure land use planning that more conspicuously align with stakeholder and Indigenous groups’ values and priorities and, in doing so, may reduce (financial and environmental) liabilities associated with closure. Given how novel the IAAC process is, no major mine has yet made it through the complete process that would provide evidence of how enhanced collaboration affects closure planning. However, we can examine in-process studies for directional indications of how the novel IAAC process relates to closure. In this paper, we review a combination of publicly available case studies for major capital projects in BC where productive collaboration and engagement with Indigenous and external stakeholders is being taken as a business imperative, and where mines are working to develop more fully integrated closure approaches. In doing so, we provide a preliminary outline of best practices in collaborative closure planning in western Canada.
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 | 0.037 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".