MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461997370

Arctic oil and gas: The role of regions

2013· article· en· W2461997370 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andreas Østhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsArcticEnvironmental scienceGeologyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Andreas Østhagen looks at oil and gas development across the North American Arctic coastal waters. How do the interests and positioning of elected regional governments in the Arctic contribute to the overall pace of natural resource development?\nPopular discourse, alongside a multitude of research and policy documents, tends to describe recent developments in the Arctic through generalisations. Yet for the thousands of people inhabiting the Arctic Circle – indigenous and non-indigenous – different challenges and opportunities present themselves. They are caused by variations across the Arctic in terms of resource potential, climate and infrastructure. Additionally, the systemic political set-up in each country determines how local and regional levels interact and formulate their respective positions on the development taking place around them. This article examines at the role of the regions and their interests – an important subject given that natural resource development is set to take place in the regions themselves, and under their remit. Of particular interest is offshore petroleum development in North America given that this part of the Arctic has been opened up for exploratory drillings in coastal waters faster than anywhere else.\nInitially, higher price levels for oil and gas, in addition to increased accessibility, set the context for increased commercial interests in the region. This, however, does not provide a complete picture. This is evidenced by the fact that the development of different parts of the North American Arctic has progressed at different speeds. Although they share many traits, the processes of developing Arctic oil and gas in the Northwest Territories, Alaska and Greenland are in fact remarkably diverse. It will be argued that decisions concerning how and when to open up new Arctic offshore areas for prospecting and exploratory drilling are as much a consequence of internal political factors arising from the interaction of national and regional levels of power, as to wider international trends. Since the final decision to allow exploratory drillings depends upon a competence struggle between federal and regional governments, understanding the role of regions in the process of opening-up new offshore leases is therefore crucial to understanding Arctic oil and gas development at large.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207