Development in the context of electrification and the lithium industry: The view of the citizens of San Pedro de Atacama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Most citizens do not oppose mining outright but see its impacts as largely negative. • Mining views are shaped by weak state presence and corporate influence. • Support for mining depends on economic and socio-environmental gains and impacts. • State absence and capital dominance have shifted justice priorities. • Views vary both within and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. In the face of the climate emergency, lithium is seen as essential for the green transition. Yet, the voices of those living in lithium-rich regions have been excluded from discussions about the industry's role in their development. Drawing on socio-environmental justice literature, this study interviewed Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens from San Pedro de Atacama in the "Lithium Triangle" region to explore their perspectives on lithium mining. While most do not oppose the industry outright, their support is conditional fundamentally on economic benefits. Despite generally negative views on mining’s impacts, many adopt a pragmatic stance, engaging with companies to secure tangible benefits amid deteriorating environmental conditions and social tensions leading to symbiotic relationships. Their responses reflect broader dynamics shaped by state neglect and corporate influence that shape the region’s path towards or away from socio-environmental justice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".