Cultural Acceptability of Alternative Pit and Quarry Rehabilitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pit and quarry sites from sand, gravel, and rock extraction must be rehabilitated by law in Ontario. Adjacent and nearby landscapes affect local residents' perceptions of the success of rehabilitation in terms of how the former extraction site "fits" the landscape. Along with ecological imperatives, the ways in which rehabilitation is designed to fit a social landscape warrants investigation. It would benefit local people, the aggregates industry, rehabilitation designers, and policy makers to have more information about how rehabilitation projects can embrace local ecological and social contexts by considering how people might perceive the acceptability and cultural value of a rehabilitation. We explored this question in southern Ontario using an online questionnaire to gather responses to a series of photographs, some of which were simulated, showing a range of landscape conditions that might occur around pits and quarries. Respondents were considerably concerned with forest loss, and to a lesser degree with habitats like wetlands and streams. Though housing perceived to be suburban was disliked, housing clusters in a rural area did not suffer the same result. People did not consistently choose a single focus as most desirable. Instead they responded to attributes within the context in which the rehabilitation occurred.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".