Canada and Russia in the North Pole: Cooperation, Conflict, and Canadian Identity in the Interpretation of the Arctic Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Arctic debate touches on a number of important international issues: national security, energy exploration and policy, environmental concerns, and maritime commerce are but a few (Heininen 2004: 218-22). The North Pole, the Arctic more generally, is becoming increasingly important to a number of international actors as climate change causes ice to melt and the Arctic’s waters become increasingly navigable (Carnaghan 2006: 1). The pressure to lay claim to the Canadian North1 is intense, as countries clamor for the right to firmly plant their flags and lay the foundations for their military bases and research facilities. Canadians must confront threats to sovereignty that they have not experienced in some years. The Arctic debate is much more than a geopolitical discussion to Canada, however. Indeed, Canada’s biggest mistake has been to largely ignore the Arctic region (Huebert 2003: 1). This benign neglect has been a major detriment to Canada’s national identity. Crossroads ISSN 1825-7208 Vol. 8, no. 1 pp. 93-109
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".