Arctic unity, Arctic difference: mapping the reach of northern discourses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, cooperative and region-building endeavours involving Arctic governments and peoples have flourished. These efforts have been rooted in a desire to pursue northern sustainable development and in assertions about the shared experiences and values of Arctic states and peoples. In this paper, a case study is presented concerning a Canadian development project designed to promote Canadian sustainable economic development models to indigenous and non-indigenous leaders and bureaucrats in the Russian north. In their efforts to move knowledge across northern borders, the Canadian project team relied clearly upon two central discourses of the Arctic region-building process: a common Arctic space and the shared pursuit of sustainable development. Drawing upon over thirty qualitative interviews and a year of participant observation at project events, the aim of this article is to map the currency and reach of these Arctic regional discourses at a more ‘local’ level amongst the Russian and Canadian Arctic residents involved in the project. The continuing debate during this development project over what Arctic regionalism and sustainable development mean in practice calls into question a key assertion of contemporary region-building rhetoric, the assumption or hopeful injunction that not only is a regional landscape or environment shared but that values and experiences are, or will come to be, shared as well.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it