L’importance politique et stratégique de l’Arctique : une perspective canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic lends a special dimension to Canadian foreign and defence policies because it is the most harsh and the least populated part of Canada, it is where American security interests impinge most insistently and it is the ham in the superpower sandwich. Moreover, the Arctic is being drawn increasingly into the international System, with important policy implications: Canada cannot expect to develop effective policies to deal with its own Arctic in isolation from other countries; and Canada's ability to carry such policies out will depend on the extent to which it can exercise effective control over its vast territory. These implications are of particular importance to Canada's relations with the United States, with whom we must strike a balance between the advantages of cooperation and the need to protect Canadian interests. This task promises to become more complex as the forward air and sea defence of the United States pushes further north, while the move toward space-based warning and surveillance Systems reduces American reliance on Canadian territory and Canadian access to American information. Traditionally Canada has dealt bilaterally with the United States on such matters but the time has come to supplement the bilateral channels with multilateral approaches wherever possible, in order to emphasize the point that the defence of North America is an integral part of the defence of the North Atlantic Treaty area. In accordance with this concept, various measures should be considered to reinforce the strategic unity of NATO, to ensure that defence measures in the Arctic are consistent with strategic stability and with arms control policies, and to establish in the Arctic a regime of mutual security, bolstered by a concerted program of circumpolar cooperation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".