Canadian Foreign Policy and the Law of the Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1960s, there have been intensive international negotiations to revise the law of the sea. These discussions culminated in the convening of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in December 1973 and in four additional sessions up to September 1976. Whether the almost 150 participating states will be able to reach an accord in 1977 or later on, the myriad issues on their agenda is still uncertain. Two major issues have been the extension of coastal-state jurisdiction over resources and activities and the estblishment of an international regime to govern the exploitation of the deep seabed. Canada's most significant role has been that of a leader of the "coastal-state grouping," which has sought to expand states' jurisdiction over fisheries, seabed resources, scientific research, and pollution control within a 200-mile economic zone and sometimes beyond. A number of these Canadian policy goals have already been accepted by a large majority of the participants in the conference. In this role, Canada has found itsself opposed to many of its traditional allies among the developed nations with large fleets engaged in commerce in distant waters, and concerned about the traditional freedom of the high seas, and has aligned itself with the coastal developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The seven essays in this volume examine the development of Canadian policies on the major law of the sea issues and the outcome of the negotiations on them. In so doing, the studies have analysed Canada's dramatic seward expansion and involvement in one of teh most important United Nations Conferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".