MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Science and International Environmental Nonregimes: The Case of Arctic Haze

2011· article· en· W2157046796 on OpenAlex
Ken Wilkening

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Policy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazeArcticThe arcticObject (grammar)Environmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)Political scienceMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dimitrov et al. argue that nonregimes are a worthy object of research attention that can contribute to international regime theory. Case studies, however, are still sparse. In this article, I examine Arctic haze, an issue area where a transnational environmental problem existed but no regime formed. Arctic haze was (re‐)discovered in 1971 but by 2000, the window of opportunity to form a regime had closed. What factors explain why an Arctic haze regime was not formed between 1971 and 2000? I claim science‐based factors play the dominant role. An analytical approach applicable to the science‐policy interface was employed. Using this approach, I conclude that the Arctic haze nonregime is best explained by the absence of scientifically documented and compelling transboundary consequences to ecosystems and humans. This is a product of the unique nature of the Arctic atmosphere.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.291 · 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