Earth Science and the Law of the Sea: Keys to Canada's Offshore Energy and Mineral Resources beyond 200 Nautical Miles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows Canada to establish sovereignty over resources of the seabed beyond the customary 200 nautical mile limit, when certain bathymetric and geological criteria are satisfied.This paper outlines the procedures for meeting those criteria, and describes the mutual benefits that can accrue to the earth sciences and the Law of the Sea through programs for collecting and analyzing the necessary data. In the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, this work could allow Canada to extend energy and mineral jurisdiction into seabed areas that approach the size of the three Prairie Provinces combined. Resume L'article 76 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer permet au Canada d'etablir sa souverainete sur les ressources des fonds marins au-dela de la limite bien connue des 200 miles nautiques, sous reserve de certains criteres bathymetriques et geologiques. Le present article decrit les procedures auxquelles il faut se plier, de meme que les retombees positives qui decoulent de la cueillette et l'analyse des donnees necessaires, autant pour les sciences de la Terre que pour le droit de la mer. En ce qui a trait aux oceans Atlantique et Arctique, le Canada pourrait voir sa juridiction s'appliquer a un territoire dont la dimension correspondrait a peu pres a l'etendue des trois provinces des Prairies ensembles.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".