The new ISO standard for mine closure and reclamation planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the new ISO standard (ISO 21795) Mine Closure and Reclamation Planning. The Standard contains two separate Parts: Part 1 provides key requirements while Part 2 provides recommendations and guidance. The two overarching objectives of the Standard are to provide a key international resource that encapsulates best practices and related guidance across the many areas of specialty involved with planning for mine closure; and to make this available to a wide range of stakeholders, especially for countries with minimal access to best practices and planning guidance. The intended audience for the Standard includes those with responsibility for, or an interest in, planning for mine closure and reclamation. This includes mine planners and designers, mine operators, regulators, environmental assessors, communities, Indigenous Peoples, and financial stakeholders, amongst others. The Working Group that developed the Mine Closure and Reclamation Planning Standard was made up of over 60 experts representing 13 countries, including several developing countries that can benefit from the best practices and guidance encapsulated by these two documents. The two Parts of ISO 21795 have been prepared to cover the lifecycle of requirements, recommendations, and supporting information that apply to mine closure and reclamation planning, including consideration of mine closure and reclamation objectives, technical procedures, consideration and mitigation of socio-economic impacts, financial planning and assurance, unplanned and post-closure activities, as well as data and knowledge management. This paper describes these requirements, recommendations, and supporting information.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it