MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405841590 · doi:10.1080/08120099.2024.2430279

A review of critical mineral resources in Australia

2024· review· en· W4405841590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Britt, K. Czarnota

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMineralMineral resource classificationEarth scienceMining engineeringGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207