MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340438775

The European Union-Greenland relations after 2015 – a partnership beyond fisheries

2016· article· en· W2340438775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piotr Kobza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionPolitical sciencePoliticsHome ruleSubsidyDanishGeneral partnershipPolitical economyLawSociologyInternational tradeEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of a new, enhanced autonomy status for Greenland within the Danish Realm  since 21 June 2009, after the referendum of 25 November 2008, brought about a new chapter in the history of the emancipation of Greenland from Copenhagen.  In comparison with the previous status, in force since 1979,  competences of the home-rule government in Nuuk were broadened, especially in the domains of jurisprudence, public order and management of the natural reserves. It was recognized that the Greenlandic nation was a subject of the international law with an inherent right to declare independence, which in turn should be respected by Denmark. The financial subsidies from Denmark were to be reduced, and economic dependence of Greenland on the Danish budget – diminished. All these introduced new possibilities for the Greenlanders to shape political and economic development of their island. The purpose of this text is to set out the reasons, ways and methods of the process of deepening relations between the European Union and Greenland, seen against the background of interests and activities of other international actors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207