La zone canadienne des 200 milles dans l’Atlantique, un exemple de la nouvelle géographie politique des océans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following upon the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea begun in 1973, the principal maritime States of the world assumed exclusive national jurisdiction over a 12- mile zone extending from their coastlines and a 188-mile economic zone beyond territorial waters. Together they constitute the more familiarly referred to « 200-mile zone ». This new practice radically changed the political geography of the oceans, lessened the area within which the freedom of the seas exists, diminished by more than a third the surface area of the high seas and dealt a heavy blow to the fishing xpeditions of foreign trawlers. Canada is one of the principal users and one of the most vigourous defenders of the 200-mile principle for geographical reasons as much as for economic or political ones. The excessive exploitation of the seabed has been felt to be a threat for a portion of the population of the Eastern part of Canada. A firm policy criticized for being somewhat unilateral has enabled Canada to eliminate foreign fleets from its 200-mile zone. Over a period of 30 years the International Commission for North-West Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) attempted to introduce a positive international cooperation in order to eliminate the anarchic excessive exploitation. It was replaced in 1979 by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization. A major dispute exists between France and Canada with respect to the delimitation of the economic zone of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French land since 1604. More generally, the question is posed as to how long the 200-mile principle will prevail in this new political geography of the oceans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".