The impacts of a non-accepted boundary claim: Russia's frontier in the Arctic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The northern frontier of Russia, which lies within the Arctic Ocean, has not yet been delineated. Establishing it cannot be undertaken without seriously impacting the northern frontiers of the USA, Canada, Denmark and Norway. Russia has submitted its case for a Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in hope that it would recommend establishing the northern frontier of Russia as the Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf. The USA, Canada and Denmark objected, and the submission was returned without a recommendation for its adoption. It is believed that Russia is reworking its case and will resubmit in the future. Russia was the first (and to date only) Arctic nation to make a submission, and even though the submission was not accepted, it touched on two core issues that will effect all boundary making in the Arctic Ocean, namely a) the use of "median line" or the "sector principle" for boundaries between Coastal States, and b) the restrictions to extending a Continental Shelf over oceanic "ridges". This paper illustrates possible interpretations of the Russian case together with the possible frontiers of the other Arctic nations based on scenarios around the two core issues. It concludes that Russia has little to lose with whatever interpretation is made, but that the other four Arctic Ocean nations stand to lose or gain significant areas.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".