Political-geographical problems of delimitation of Russia’s North and Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the political-geographical issues related to determination of the composition and boundaries of the Russian regions in the North and Arctic. It is pointed out that a generally accepted identification technique for the southern boundary of the North is lacking as well as a basic federal law of its regionalization (zoning). It is concluded that the delimitation of the Russian North is the country’s most challenging social, economic and political problem, because it affects the interests of tens of millions of Russian citizens, and not only those living in the Extreme North and in equated localities, but also four times as many people living in adjacent areas, who also receive a cash bonus and northern living allowance. This research unveils the question of unsettledness as to the demarcation of the water area of the Arctic Ocean that arose after the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea became effective in 1982, because its main provisions differ drastically from the historically established division of the Arctic into five polar sectors under the jurisdiction of Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark and Norway. An assessment is made of the following negative consequences of Russia’s retreat from the sectoral principle of division of the Arctic: an actual loss of the national treatment in its own sector, voluntary abandonment of its sovereign rights to a part of the water area and deep-water bottom in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, and a likely transformation of the national water transport communications, the Northern Sea Route, to an international route, with its removal from the jurisdiction of Russia. The possibility that Russia retains its maritime arctic spaces within the boundaries of the entire polar sector is substantiated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".