Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sovereignty and the ArcticThe definition of the word "sovereignty" is simple: it is the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation.Combine that word with the word "Arctic" and you provoke in Canadians strong feelings of both pride and fear.Pride that such a remote, beautiful and unique region of the planet is part of Canada, contributing so much to our sense of place and national identity.Fear that others covet it and its riches, or, even worse, refuse to respect the fact that the Arctic is integral to our nationality.Fear also that its legendary isolation has been breached, and that the poisons and troubles of the southern world intrude there, causing malevolent change.And fear that we are powerless to stop this, or those who wish to plunder it or change it for the worse.Is the Arctic changing?There is concern that climate change is contributing to a warming of the Arctic.And certainly there is renewed interest in developing the untapped energy resources of the Arctic littoral of North America.It is this interest that is yet again stimulating the perennial debate about Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.For example, a December 7, 2000 newspaper article quotes a Canadian military report that the "vast mineral, marine and freshwater resources located in the Canadian Arctic virtually ensure the existence of future challenges to Canadian claims to sovereignty over the Arctic waters and archipelago."The aim of this paper is to explore these challenges to Canadian "claims" of sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Arctic Archipelago. Land and LawFirst of all, Canada has no "claims" of sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago.Canadian sovereignty is an accepted fact.There is no dispute about the ownership of the lands and islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.So let there be no mistake: they belong to Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".