Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, a flourishing network of coUaboration has grown up between Russia and its neighbouring Nordic countries in the European north. The Barents Euro-Arctic region (BEAR) was established in 1993 by several north European states and regional administrative entities in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. Its aim is to promote relations across the old east-west divide in the European north, and to enable joint projects in such areas as trade and industry, student exchanges, and indigenous issues.1 In addition, Russia and the Nordic countries are pursuing various bilateral schemes focused on a particular problem or chaUenge in the north. One of them is the joint Norwegian- Russian fisheries commission, which manages the valuable fish resources in the Barents Sea. In various bilateral and multilateral partnerships, western states are working to address the environmental problems on the Kola Peninsula. This article gives a brief overview of these cooperative arrangements and Russian perceptions of them.2THE BARENTS EURO-ARCTIC REGIONThe idea of a Barents region was first aired by Thorvald Stoltenberg in April 1992 when he was Norwegian minister of foreign affairs. After consultions with Russia and the other Nordic states, BEAR was established by the Kirkenes declaration of January 1993, whereby Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia pledged to work together at both the regional and national levels. At the regional level, BEAR initially included the three northernmost counties of Norway, Norrbotten in Sweden, Lapland in Finland, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Oblasts and the Republic of Karelia in Russia. They were joined in 1997 by Nenets autonomous Okrug, located within Arkhangelsk Oblast, which became a member in its own right, and later by Vasterbotten (Sweden), OuIu and Kainuu (Finland), and the Republic of Komi (Russia). All these regional entities are represented on the regional council of BEAR, as are the indigenous peoples of the region.3 The Barents Euro-Arctic Council, on which Denmark, Iceland, and the European Commission sit in addition to the four core states, was created to promote and facilitate intergovernmental cooperation. The following countries have observer status: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, and the United States.BEAR was designed to promote stability and prosperity in the area and its aims are described by the concepts of normalization, stabilization, and regionalization. It works, for example, to reduce military tension, allay the environmental threat, and narrow the east-west gap in standards of living in the region. It is also involved in the regionalization process underway in Europe as well as in the Arctic, turning previously peripheral border areas into places where governments can meet in a transnational forum serving a diversity of interests. Areas of particular concern are environmental protection, regional infrastructure, economic cooperation, science and technology, culture, tourism, health care, and the indigenous peoples of region.One of the most striking features of east- west relations of the European north foUowing the end of the Cold War has been the massive flow of people in both directions across country borders, some of whom decide to settle for good in the new country. Annual crossings between Norway and Russia increased from over 3000 in the early 1990s to nearly 110,000 by the mid20 00 s.4 East- west tourism is thriving; political and business delegations frequently visit partners on the other side of the border; students visit for longer or shorter periods; and finally, most of the towns on the Nordic side of the border are home to Russian communities of various sizes. Many Russians have married Scandinavians and have become eligible for permanent residence permits; other newcomers have come as a result of numerous exchange programs run by BEAR, obtaining temporary residence and work permits on account of their special qualifications. …
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".