Indigenous Experiences of the Mining Resource Cycle in Australia’s Northern Territory
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 proposes a model of how Indigenous communities may engage with the mining sector to better manage local development impacts and influence governance processes. The model uses a resource lifecycle perspective to identify the various development opportunities and challenges that remote Indigenous communities and stakeholders may face at different stages of the mining project. The model is applied to two case studies located in the Northern Territory of Australia (Gove Peninsula and Ngukurr) which involved different types and scales of mining and provided different opportunities for development and governance engagement for surrounding Indigenous communities. Both cases emphasise how the benefits and burdens associated with mining, as well as the bridges between Indigenous and outsider approaches to development and governance, can change very quickly due to the volatile nature of remote mining operations. There is thus a need for more flexible agreements and more dynamic relationships between Indigenous, mining and other governance stakeholders that can be adjusted and renegotiated as the conditions for mining change. The final discussion reflects on how the model may be applied in the context mining governance and Indigenous stakeholder engagement in the Fennoscandian north.
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