Beyond Extraction: Fostering Responsible Mining Practices in the Lithium Industry - A Case Study of Albemarle and the Indigenous Council of the Atacameños Peoples in Northern Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining is at the base of green technologies for a more sustainable future; however, responsible mining is not often achieved. This exploratory case study focuses on the case of the agreement between the US American mining company Albemarle and the local Indigenous communities that formed the Council of the Atacameño People, in Northern Chile. This agreement is part of Albemarle’s Corporate Social Responsibility approach and is seen as one of the positive examples of practices working towards mining that benefits the local community and limits the effects on the local environment. This case is explored through a deductive thematic analysis to explore and define the nature of the agreement: whether it can be classified as a cooperation or collaboration, after which the experiences of the Indigenous communities will be studied in a summative content analysis of social media posts which is visualized in a word cloud. The analysis shows that the agreement can be classified as a collaboration, however with important elements that are cooperative. Although this means that the agreement aims to include the Indigenous communities in several ways, it also highlights the fact that the Indigenous communities are not equal in the agreement and their goals are considered less in the process. The studied social media posts show that the Indigenous communities have shifted their perspective of Albemarle seemingly positively, notwithstanding that there are increasing expressions of worry about the future existence as communities. This thesis concludes that even though the agreement sounds promising on paper, the experiences of the Indigenous communities in the area are still that they are risking losing their culture and ecosystem. The local communities have formally consented to the mining practices by signing the agreements, but there is dissent among community members regarding their true attitudes. This is extremely worrisome as this thesis is focused on one of the most positive examples of CSR efforts within mining companies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".