MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106055047 · doi:10.14430/arctic510

Human Dimensions Of The Arctic System

2004· article· en· W2106055047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henry P. Huntington

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticHuman DimensionThe arcticPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsLibrary scienceGeographySociologyEcologyEngineeringComputer scienceHuman rightsOceanographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997, the National Science Foundation (USA) started a project called Human Dimensions of the Arctic System, given the acronym HARC. This initiative was part of the Arctic System Science Program, intended to promote understanding of the processes and feedbacks that involve and shape the physical, biological, and social components of the Arctic. HARC, in turn, was designed to boost research involving those social components, examining ways in which humans affect and are affected by the Arctic system. In a meeting of HARC investigators in 2002, several people suggested compiling a journal issue dedicated to Arctic human dimensions research. This issue [Arctic, v. 57, no. 4] is the result. I am grateful to the authors of the papers for making that idea a reality. On their behalf and mine, I thank the National Science Foundation for funding this issue and the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States for administrative and intellectual support. Arctic human dimensions research neither began nor developed in isolation. Various national and international efforts, such as the International Human Dimensions Program (IHDP), have sponsored, encouraged, and developed a community of researchers for the field. Nonetheless, HARC stands out in three ways: it has a clear geographic focus; it has a strong link to physical and biological research in the same region and program; and researchers have had considerable latitude in determining appropriate subjects and methods for their studies. This collection of papers reflects that diversity, constituting a rough and partial summary of HARC's achievements, plus one paper ... that was not part of HARC but addresses a relevant topic. ... three main conclusions can be drawn. First, the human dimensions of the Arctic system are extensive, complex, and diverse. Second, the study of human dimensions is similarly diverse, innovative, and compelling. Third, the field has matured to the stage that the next major challenge lies in synthesizing the results of many individual studies so that we can discern patterns and paradigms that will further illuminate the various case studies already conducted. If we can maintain the momentum generated by the work to date, the study of human dimensions in the Arctic has a bright future.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207