ArticleScientific reports2025
A robust framework for evaluating green mines towards sustainable development.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of green mines is essential for promoting sustainability in the mining sector due to the significant ecological impacts of resource extraction. This study proposes a novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework that integrates Spherical Fuzzy Sets (SFSs) with SWOT analysis, the CRITIC method, and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). The framework introduces several innovations: it applies SFS-based MCDM for the first time to green mine evaluation in Egypt, structures 37 sustainability-related criteria under SWOT dimensions, and employs SF-CRITIC for objective weighting without subjective comparisons. The model is applied to assess 20 gold mines, where the SF-GRA method is used to rank alternatives based on proximity to an ideal solution. The results show that GME20 consistently ranks highest, while GME5 ranks lowest. A sensitivity analysis is conducted by varying the Grey relational coefficient and simulating 37 weight scenarios, demonstrating stable rankings and strong model resilience. Comparative analysis against ten SFS-based MCDM methods confirms the consistency of results, with Spearman correlation coefficients exceeding 0.77. In addition to its methodological novelty, the framework supports interpretable decision outcomes by identifying key sustainability drivers such as renewable energy adoption and land reclamation. This contributes actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders, enabling informed green investment and regulatory decisions. The study offers a transparent, reproducible, and scalable tool for sustainability evaluation in resource-intensive industries. The proposed model introduces a structured integration of SWOT-based criteria classification, objective weight computation via SF-CRITIC, and robust alternative ranking using SF-GRA. Furthermore, it contributes uniquely by applying the methodology to the underexplored context of green mine evaluation in Egypt. These distinctions articulate the methodological and application-based novelties of the proposed framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.