Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States, as one of the five Arctic states, plays what seems at first glance a typical role in the Arctic through their regional policy that uses standard tactical maneuvers, which have proven themselves worthy in other areas of the globe. However, this role is played with unusual passiveness that can be attributed primarily to a lack of an Arctic identity. This is most evident upon comparison with other states of the Arctic "five", which are completely different from each other, and nevertheless are bound by a sense of belonging to the North. The Unites States is the only Arctic state that has not signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that has taken a firm stance on the sovereignty of the Northwest Passage, that risks increasing tensions with Canada, and that is not developing its icebreaker fleet, which is crucial to operations in the Arctic. This circumpolar strategic ambivalence of a powerful state, that is experienced in conducting foreign affairs, in itself presents significant room for research. Meanwhile, the region's importance is increasing in the changing international environment; it can become a "battlefield" due its strategic geopolitical position and at the same time the "main trophy"due to its abundant hydrocarbon potential. During the recent years, the Arctic has been gradually transforming into a "metaregion" for foreign affairs; its geographically limited borders have spread globally due to an increasing international presence in the Polar Region that has significant energy resources and transportation potential. This is confirmed by the emergence of new actors (including traditionally non-Arctic players), the change in agenda of multilateral discussions (traditional topics, such as protection of the fragile Arctic environment, indigenous peoples of the North, have been complemented with the new "challenges" of energy security, global warming, and militarization), and the strengthening of the institutional framework (the Arctic Council has been more and more influential). In light of the recent tension in Russian-US relations and the rising significance of the Polar Region, US Arctic policy should be the subject of an in-depth analysis of foreign-affairs experts and the government.
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 | 0.039 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".