MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581933138

An Icy Question: The Possibility of Governing Arctic Sea Ice

2018· article· en· W1581933138 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erzsébet Csatlós

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSovereigntyExclusive economic zoneJurisdictionNautical mileContinental shelfOceanographyUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaTerritorial watersGeographyGeologyInternational lawLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic is a 4.300 meters deep ocean surrounded by a vast and nearly continuous continental belt and covered by not a coherent ice cover, but moving ice formations of various thickness.1 According to general law of the sea, beyond territorial waters of coastal States it is governed by the freedom of the seas doctrine restricted by rights inherent to contiguous and exclusive economic zones (hereinafter: EEZ).2 However, it is a long time standing tendency that certain coastal States - namely Canada and the Russia – intend to expand their sovereignty beyond territorial seas under different titles like environmental protection.3 The sovereignty over territory beyond the North Circle has been a subject of a nearly 100 year-old debate. During the last centuries the north part of the continents were occupied or obtained under other legally justified titles by neighboring States. Later, in the beginning of the 20th century shipping facilities attracted naval States to shorten sea routes between the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and the restriction of freedom of the seas and expansion of State sovereignty was the aim of Arctic coastal States. Nowadays, it is the huge unexploited oil and gas resource lying in the continental shelf under the Arctic Ocean is the most attractive force in the area beside sea routes.4 Regarding that these most valuable parts of the Arctic region are beyond the exclusive jurisdiction of coastal States but not beside the circle of interest of States, it is to be examined whether it is possible to expand jurisdiction over this part of the Arctic Ocean as it the domain of mare liberum just like many other similar areas of the world. Or it is not? The surface of Arctic Ocean is as a matter of fact covered by ice sheets, ice islands and ice floes. Are the same titles of acquisition of territory legally applicable to expand and exercise jurisdiction over ice – and of course to obtain the coastal States’ right to exploit the possibilities in the seaward zones belonging to coastal State? Does terra firma falls under the same legal regime as terra glacia? It is an important question of our time as owing to technical development and melting of ice the accessibility of northern regions is getting less difficult and causing more problems to the international community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207