Establishing a critical minerals industry: Review of Canada's administrative and legal efforts at the national and sub-national levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article addresses Canada's domestic and foreign critical minerals policies. We identify a gap in the existing literature on the role of the federal government and sub-national entities in defining priorities, addressing risks, and promoting industrial developments of critical minerals. Based on an extensive literature review of these minerals and their production in Canada, as well as the identification of 26 federal, provincial, territorial, and First Nation documents guiding critical minerals developments, we provide a detailed analysis of the dynamics at stake in the sector. First we find that research specific to critical minerals is lacking in Canada. While studies on the mining sector are well developed, the focus is not on critical minerals but on overarching mining topics. Second, we identify a unique case in Canada where national and sub-national entities drive the critical minerals discussion, reinforcing each other in common areas and complementing each other in other topics. Third, we point to the focus on collaboration, information-sharing, and responsible production of the Canadian domestic and foreign engagement in critical Minerals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".