Social Acceptability of Critical and Strategic Minerals (CSMs) Development: A Systematic Review with a Particular Focus on Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social acceptability (SA) of mining projects is a crucial issue for the sustainable development of territories and local communities. This article aims to identify the issues and examine the factors influencing the SA of exploration, exploitation and processing projects of critical and strategic minerals (CSMs) in Quebec. A systematic review guided by the PRISMA approach was conducted, selecting 57 relevant documents after excluding several others. The results reveal that between 2000 and 2024, the publication of studies on SA in the mining sector has increased significantly, particularly since 2013. Research is mainly concentrated in North America, with a predominance of case studies. Their critical analysis indicates that the SA of mining projects is based on various issues, including the need for greater consideration of the perspectives of local communities, as well as open and inclusive communication between all stakeholders. However, SA is affected by various factors, including demographic, economic, environmental and governance, which can have positive or negative effects depending on the context. Following this analysis, future research should explore the complex interactions between these factors, determining how some may act as mediators or moderators in various contexts through real case studies.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".