Pursuing Alignment: A Comparison of Public Officials and Citizen Perception of Mine Development
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
Maintaining legitimacy is a crucial objective for public officials to ensure effectiveness. Without legitimacy, political costs rise as the trust in government decreases and policy implementation is delayed; thus, officials handling resource development are encouraged to improve the acceptability of their processes. Therefore, it is essential for the government to understand the values and expectations of the citizens affected by resource development. Such an understanding assists the government in accomplishing its goals. This paper examines two cases, Norrbotten, Sweden, and Saskatchewan, Canada, both of which have established mining operations and similar regulatory frameworks and, during the commodities boom, experienced increased foreign investment and applications for new mines. While most mining projects in Saskatchewan faced little public opposition, some Norrbotten mines met contestation and protest. This paper utilizes survey data that focus on the perspectives of the residents close to the proposed mining operations, as well as interview data from public officials responsible for mine permitting, to examine the relationship between stakeholder influence and trust in government on the acceptability of mining.
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