GeoPolRisk Assessment of Critical Minerals in Canada's Battery Supply Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ: Alors que le Canada s'oriente vers les énergies renouvelables, il est confronté à d'éventuelles ruptures d'approvisionnement en minéraux essentiels pour les batteries au lithium-ion, en raison de leur distribution mondiale inégale et de la complexité de la géopolitique. Cette étude évalue ces risques géopolitiques à l'aide d'une méthode GeoPolRisk améliorée qui inclut des facteurs environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance (ESG). Cet outil offre une perspective globale sur les risques géopolitiques, en intégrant à la fois les paramètres traditionnels et les considérations ESG. La recherche introduit une nouvelle analyse des indices de saturation de la production et des exportations d'un pays et préconise de passer d'une perspective de concentration de la production à une perspective de concentration des exportateurs à l'aide de l'indice Herfindahl-Hirschman. Étant donné que les pays, y compris le Canada, dépendent de plus en plus de ces minéraux essentiels, les conclusions de cette étude éclairent les stratégies de gestion des risques géopolitiques et d'atténuation des perturbations potentielles de la chaîne d'approvisionnement en minéraux essentiels. ABSTRACT: As Canada pivots towards renewable energy, it grapples with potential supply disruptions of critical minerals essential for lithium-ion batteries due to their uneven global distribution and complex geopolitics. This study assesses these geopolitical risks using an enhanced GeoPolRisk method that includes Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors. This tool offers a comprehensive perspective on geopolitical risks, incorporating both traditional parameters and ESG considerations. The research introduces a novel analysis of a nation's production and export saturation indices and advocates a shift from production to exporter concentration perspective using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. As nations, including Canada, increasingly rely on these critical minerals, the findings of this study inform strategies for managing geopolitical risks and mitigating potential disruptions in the critical mineral supply chain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".