Why did Canada join the consensus decision on the East Asian applications for observership at the 2013 Arctic Council meeting in Kiruna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the term 2013-2015.The Arctic Council comprises both member states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russia Federation, Sweden and the U.S.) and Permanent Participants (PPs), representing the Arctic Indigenous population.Of the eight PPs, three organizations have Canadian representation, namely the Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), the Gwich'in Council International (GCI), and the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC).The activities of the Council are carried out by six working groups (WGs). 2 Observer status in the Arctic Council is open to non-Arctic states, inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, and non-governmental organizations.By the mid-2000s, East Asian countries, among others, started to seek observership in the Council.At the Kiruna Arctic Council Ministerial meeting in May 2013 China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were eventually admitted as observers.Among the Arctic Council member states, Canada, together with Russia, has traditionally been perceived as the most wary of an "internationalization" of the Council.Ultimately, however, Canada contributed to the consensus decision on the East Asian observers at Kiruna. Research questionIn light of the above, this thesis will consider the following research question: Why did Canada join the consensus decision on the East Asian applications for observership at the 2013 Arctic Council meeting in Kiruna?I will answer this research question by focusing my analysis on interests and institutions acting at both the domestic level of internal Canadian politics as well as Arctic international relations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".