Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic, located directly between the United States and the Soviet Union, was on the front lines of the Cold War. Nuclear submarines prowled the Arctic Ocean while long-range bombers circled overhead. Runways and radar stations were built across the Canadian north, along with underwater acoustic sensors for detecting the submarines.A more cooperative approach has emerged since 1990, when the United States and the Soviet Union agreed on the location of their maritime boundary in the Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and Chukchi Sea. In 1996, the creation of the Arctic Council institutionalized cooperation on nonmilitary matters among the eight Arctic countries: Russia, the United States (Alaska), Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland.In the past decade, the cooperation has intensified because of climate change, which is melting the Arctic sea ice, opening new shipping routes, and faccilitating access to oil and gas. As a result, existing and potential maritime boundary disputes have acquired new relevance. In May 2008, the five countries that border on the Arctic Ocean (Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Norway) adopted the Ilulissat declaration, in which they reaffirmed their commitment to working within an existing framework of international law to delimit their respective areas of jurisdiction over the seabed. In March 2010, the Canadian government announced in the throne speech that it would work with other northern countries to settle boundary disagreements.The Cold War divide has not been as easy to bridge on security matters. NATO's membership has been expanded to include several countries bordering on Russia, causing concern there, while the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has been extended to include the sharing of maritime surveillance between Canada and the United States, including in the Northwest Passage. That said, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 provided an impetus for some forms of security cooperation between NATO countries and Russia, notably the proliferation security initiative, which applies to oceans everywhere, including in the Arctic. Recent improvements in US-Russia relations, especially with respect to missile defence, nuclear nonproliferation, and disarmament, could have major implications for circumpolar politics. They also create an opportunity for Canada, the United States' largest trading partner and Russia's Arctic neighbour, to assist with transforming our Cold War adversary into a safe, reliable partner of the west.CLIMATE CHANGEClimate change is more apparent in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. In addition to the rising temperatures caused by global greenhouse gas emissions, change is being driven by Arctic- specific feedback loops arising out of the precarious balance between water and ice. An increase in average annual temperatures of just a fraction of one degree can transform highly reflective sea ice into dark, heat-absorbing open water. The same increase can turn rock-hard, chemically stable permafrost into a decomposing, methane-emitting, morass of ancient plant material. In recent decades, average annual temperatures in the western Canadian Arctic have increased by more than three degrees Celsius.In 2004, the Arctic climate impact assessment reported that the average extent of sea ice cover in summer had declined by 15 to 20 percent over the previous three decades. The rate of ice melt has accelerated since then, with a loss of one million square kilometres in 2007 alone - leaving the Northwest Passage temporarily ice-free. The heat absorbed by the newly revealed open water not only melts additional ice during the summer but also delays the formation of the next winter's ice, which makes that ice thinner and more susceptible to melting the following summer.A complete, late-summer melt-out of Arctic sea ice could occur as early as 2013.1 When that happens, Arctic waters will become navigable 12 months a year, since a complete melt will spell the end of the multiyear ice that, after surviving the summer, becomes thicker and harder as a result of the accretion of new ice and the leaching out of sea salt during the warming-and-cooling cycle. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".