An International Polar Code of Navigation: Consequences and Opportunities for the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Arctic regime on vessel-source pollution is currently fragmented and inadequate to tackle the emerging environmental risks. Thus, a harmonized set of norms is needed to ensure compliance with internationally recognized standards. During the IMO’s Polar Code negotiations, Canada and the Russian Federation claimed that the regulations adopted pursuant to article 234 shall not be infringed. If ratified and complied with by a large majority of the international shipping community, The Code could acquire the status of generally accepted international rules and standard (GAIRAS). It follows that a Polar Code is not likely to substitute existing national norms, nor will it impede Arctic coastal states to use article 234 in the future. The tension between harmonization and the persistence of national regulations will likely result in a partially harmonized regime. While the Code will extend environmental protection to the high seas, national regulations will be harmonized in the EEZ insofar as design, construction, equipment and manning standards are concerned. Aside from the Polar Code process, designation of Special Areas and PSSAs may integrate the future Polar Code and the national regulatory frameworks now in force. Bilateral or multilateral harmonization should not be excluded to the extent practicable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".