Society and Mining: Reimagining Legitimacy in Times of Crisis—The Case of Panama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines Panama’s 2023 mining restrictions to illuminate persistent legitimacy crises in extractive governance. Employing a qualitative case study, it draws on 25 semi-structured interviews with government officials, industry representatives, Indigenous leaders, local communities, mining critics and other civil society actors, alongside policy and document analysis. Findings suggest that legitimacy reconstruction relies on four interdependent conditions: procedural justice, institutional trust, epistemic legitimacy, and relational governance. Stakeholders consistently emphasized transparency, capacity building, and inclusive engagement as essential for future mining activity, underscoring that technical standards alone are insufficient without credible institutions. Building on—but extending beyond—frameworks such as Social License to Operate (SLO) and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), this paper offers Social Legitimacy for Mining (SLM) as a provisional, co-produced framework. Developed through literature synthesis and refined by diverse stakeholder perspectives, SLM is applied in Panama as an illustrative proof of concept that may inform further research and practice, while recognizing the need for additional adaptation across jurisdictions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".