Planning for post-mine landscapes : Collaboration between mining companies, governments, and Indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulations in many mining jurisdictions and international guidance on mine closure incorporate the concept of defining post-mining land uses as a component of closure planning and design. These include the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, which requires that end land uses be defined as part of the mining process. Modern permit conditions in British Columbia for End Land Use Plans or “Returning Land Use Plans”, a term coined by Nlaka’pamux communities in 2015, include the requirement to develop post-mining land-use planning with Indigenous communities whose territories include the mine site, collaboratively defining a vision for reclamation. The goal of these plans is to ensure that the landscape, after mines are reclaimed, reflects the values, relationships to, and desired land use of community members, but is also realistic and achievable within engineering and ecological constraints. Indigenous communities drive the approach to collaboration that can vary by community and mine. This paper provides a summary of the regulatory context and history of End Land Use Plans in British Columbia and outlines lessons learned working with mine sites and communities to collaboratively develop these plans in British Columbia, Yukon, and Saskatchewan.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".