The Arctic Council: Past, Present, and Future Prospects with Canada in the Chair from 2013 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Established in 1996 as a “high level forum” to promote co-operation in the Circumpolar World, the eight-nation Arctic Council subsumed the programs and initiatives of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, initiated in 1991. Six Indigenous peoples’ organizations enjoy “permanent participant” status in the Council, which has successfully completed wide-ranging technical assessments on environmental, social, and economic issues. In 2004 the Council approved an Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, four years in the making. Projecting extensive ablation of Arctic sea ice resulting in significant environmental and social change, this assessment markedly influenced the subsequent research and policy agenda of the Council and the attitude to the region of many non-Arctic states and interests. The European Parliament and some academics and non-governmental organizations suggest that as a result of the “opening” of the Arctic to increased development of hydrocarbons and minerals, a legally-binding treaty be put in place to ensure development in the region is “orderly.” This concept has been firmly rejected by the Arctic states which have, instead, promoted the evolution of the Arctic Council to broaden and deepen co-operation in the region. The Council now has numerous observers: twelve non-Arctic states, nine international intergovernment and inter-parliamentary organizations, and eleven non-governmental organizations. The Council is now supported by a permanent secretariat based in Tromso, Norway. Of considerable importance, ministers increasingly provide the Council with the mandate to negotiate legally-binding agreements to address specific issues.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".