INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND TRENDS OF INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ARCTIC TERRITORIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article and summarized the regularities of formation of foreign experience and trends of development of Arctic territories. Set out the important points predetermine orientation and specificity of manifestations of national interests – potential participants of the subsoil in the Arctic zone. On the basis of the illuminated materials were obtained the following conclusions: Signifi cant interest in the Arctic show today, not only the fi ve countries (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark), who own Arctic territories, but also polar state (Iceland, Sweden, Finland), the European Union and Asia. As a consequence of that, it is expected that in the XXI century the Arctic region will be the focus of attention as an official Arctic 45, and a number of states whose territory is quite removed from it; For Russia, given the current, acute political conditions (sanctions, confrontation with the West, Ukrainian crisis and war in the Middle East) development of Arctic territories, some moved away, moved on tomorrow and the day after tomorrow on the agenda. This approach is fundamentally fl awed and fraught with a number of threats, because other countries do not decrease, but only increase their interest in this issue; Territorial opposition to all those involved in the topic of causing instability in the Arctic region, but does not represent a real threat for the emergence of large-scale conflict. Therefore, making the choice between the hard pressure of national interests and the interests of harmonization of the Arctic states, Russia must be based on international cooperation and mutual consideration of interests in the development of its Arctic strategy; Considering the cooperation of the countries of the Arctic Council and their cooperation in the framework of a global economic forum G8, there are prerequisites for the decision of the Arctic confl ict through negotiation and compromise. In this context it is very important to develop the legal and regulatory institutional frameworks on Arctic issues. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the fact that, based on best international practices and trends in the fi eld of exploration and development of Arctic territories, recommend measures regarding the development and implementation of the Russian Arctic policy, namely: Increase the efficiency of technological equipment and exploration and production of natural resources in the Arctic; The achievement of a reliable logistical infrastructure to secure future energy supplies; Transformation of the operational risks of development and extraction of natural resources in the Arctic financial risks through the mechanisms of public-private partnerships and venture fi nancing; Harmonization of domestic legislation in the sphere of development of Arctic territories with international; Liberalization of the production and sale of energy resources, lobbying national Arctic interests at the global level through the various national structures and institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".