Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last half a decade, securing supply of critical minerals has rapidly risen in importance globally as countries seek to resource modern technologies essential for the energy transition to net zero and defence applications. Sixty-five elements are considered critical and/or strategic by Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Korea, the European Union, the UK and the USA, owing to concerns about supply-chain vulnerability. Critical minerals are not a new concept, nor is the current background of geopolitical tension and rivalry. What is different is the enormous, forecasted demand for critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies, and the urgency of bringing new production online to meet net zero objectives by 2050 through the development of new supply and the diversification of critical mineral supply chains. Here, we review Australia’s unique endowment of critical minerals and strategic materials, opportunities for development and their global significance. Australia has an enormous critical minerals endowment with documented resources of 26 of the 31 commodities on Australia’s Critical Minerals List in 477 deposits, of which 75% remain undeveloped. In addition, there is potential for new discoveries and realisation of by-product opportunities in all Australian states and the Northern Territory. Government geoscience coupled with an entrepreneurial minerals sector has played, and will continue to play, an indispensable role in growing Australia’s resources base and growing downstream value through processing innovation. To maximise equitable benefits and sustainable growth from critical mineral opportunities in Australia, continued improvement in environmental, social and governance performance is required, including partnerships with First Nations people, development of critical minerals standards, improved mineral traceability and growth of the circular economy. Mine waste reprocessing and by-product potential at existing mining operations provide tractable short- to medium-term opportunities to expand Australia’s critical minerals mining, processing and manufacturing sectors, to counter some of the geopolitical leverage of dominant market players.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".