MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defining maritime boundaries: ‘the murky hand of history's oversight’ in the Gulf of Maine

2004· article· en· W1999238972 on OpenAlex
Joan Marshall

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaritime boundaryContext (archaeology)Political scienceState (computer science)FishingBoundary (topology)Boundary lineInternational courtTerritorial watersInternational communityExclusive economic zoneTerritorial disputeLawInternational lawGeographyPublic international lawEngineeringArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an unresolved boundary dispute in the Gulf of Maine, between the United States and Canada, in an area known as the Grey Zone is examined. In the context of a juridically weak framework of principles for determining international maritime boundaries, the case of a small fishing community caught between conflicting national interests and a lucrative fishing zone being claimed by both countries is examined. Left unresolved with the 1984 International Court of Justice decision defining the ‘Hague Line’, this dispute is made more problematic because of ambiguous objectives and conflicting agendas between national governments, between state and community levels and within the community itself.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it