Comparative perspectives on the social aspects of mine closure and mine site transition in Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the growing recognition of mine closure as a unique phase of the mining cycle, increasing scholarly, industry, and regulatory attention is being focused on the social and economic dimensions of mine site transitions. Recent best practice statements and guideline documents promote “integrated closure planning” as an approach to mine closure that includes both environmental and socioeconomic objectives. In spite of these commitments, in many jurisdictions, the regulatory framework around closure planning neglects or overlooks the necessity for socioeconomic plans or lacks clear objectives for social outcomes. This gap inhibits the ability of industry and communities to adequately account for and mitigate the often devastating socioeconomic effects of mine closure, and integrate community objectives for mine site transitions. In this chapter, we compare approaches to mine closure regulations in three jurisdictions—Queensland and the Northern Territory in Australia, and Nunavik (Northern Québec) in Canada—to assess whether and how regional authorities address the social aspects of mine closure and mine site transitions, including economic and cultural impacts and post-mining land use. In particular, we focus on barriers and opportunities for local and Indigenous community participation and highlight emerging practices of community engagement in mine closure and transition planning. This comparison highlights the factors that shape the approach in these jurisdictions, including governance structures, Indigenous rights, negotiated agreements, and the scale and scope of mineral development activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".