MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092617591 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v61i4.17478

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); strategy and results with focus on the human health assessment under the second phase of AMAP, 1998–2003

2002· article· en· W2092617591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jens C. Hansen, Lars-Otto Reiersen, Simon Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticThe arcticEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental monitoringGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthEcologyMedicineOceanographyBiologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1991, Ministers of the eight Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and USA), adopted the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). To implement part of this strategy, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was established and requested by Ministers to “examine levels of anthropogenic pollutants...from any sources...and to assess their effects in all relevant compartments of the Arctic environment”. In 1996 the AEPS, including all its working groups, was reorganized under the newly formed Arctic Council.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207