MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002808699 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2012.709053

Defence diplomacy in the Arctic: the search and rescue agreement as a confidence builder

2012· article· en· W2002808699 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather Exner-Pirot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleTransport Canada
KeywordsDiplomacyCircumpolar starGeopoliticsPolitical scienceArcticThe arcticPeacetimeContext (archaeology)Foreign policySearch and rescueNational securityPublic administrationLawGeographyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In May 2011, the members of the Arctic Council, the pre-eminent inter-governmental forum for circumpolar affairs, concluded the first legally binding agreement in its 15-year history. The Agreement on Search and Rescue (SAR) cooperation in the Arctic, while not a particularly influential document in its own right, offers the circumpolar states an excellent opportunity to pursue defense diplomacy in the region: the peacetime cooperative use of armed forces and related infrastructure as a tool of security and foreign policy. This paper will discuss the current status of military cooperation in the Arctic and outline the prospects for defense diplomacy as a means to reduce tension and enhance geopolitical stability in the region, particularly in the context of the new search and rescue agreement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207