MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412717497 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2025.2506894

Land use change and related carbon emissions from metal mines in Canada: An industry-level review

2025· article· en· W4412717497 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Smith, O. Asa’d, Michelle Levesque, D. Jewell

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersLand use, land-use change and forestryClimate changeNatural resource economicsLand useEngineeringGeologyEconomicsOceanographyMaterials scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During mining, native vegetation, dead organic matter, and soil are stripped from the landscape to accommodate mine infrastructure. Carbon emissions increase in response to rapid land-use change (LUC) because the carbon storage (i.e., in living and dead biomass) capacity of the site is reduced or lost for the life of mine. New and expanding mines need to account for these carbon impacts during net zero planning for their operations. This analysis reviewed LUCs for 85 metal mine sites in Canada in 2001 ± 1 and 2019 ± 1. LUC was estimated using satellite imagery and publicly available operations information. Greenhouse gas emissions were determined based on a Government of Canada accounting method. A total of 27,000 hectares of land were disturbed. The associated 12.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted during the study period represented approximately 15% of Scope 1 emissions from hydrocarbon-based fuel consumption at these operations. The impact on the carbon sink estimated for select sites was up to 20% of the carbon emissions from LUCs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM JournalSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207