Sustainable Arctic Shipping: Are Current International Rules for Polar Shipping Sufficient?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 1, 2017, the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) will enter into force, ushering in a new era in regulation of shipping in Arctic and Antarctic waters. The Polar Code was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) after years of difficult deliberations. The adoption of the Code required amendment of two of the most important conventions concerning safety of life at sea and vessel-source pollution. A third convention on standards of training for seafarers was also amended after the Code was adopted and the changes will come into effect on January 1, 2018. To put the importance of this development into perspective, it suffices to observe that before the adoption of the Polar Code, Arctic waters received far less international legal protection from shipping activities than the Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North Sea. When the hazardous navigation conditions, environmental uniqueness and threats to the activities of the indigenous peoples for whom the Arctic is home are considered, the insufficient protection is even more obvious (Figure 1). As vessel activities in Arctic waters grow, there will be a commensurate increase of risks to human life, environment, wildlife and well-being of indigenous communities. International and domestic regulation of shipping is critical to promote maritime safety, preservation of the marine environment and protection of local economies from potential casualties. Considering what is at stake, is shipping regulation sufficient to ensure navigation safety and environment protection in the Arctic? This essay considers global, regional and national initiatives and how they support sustainable Arctic shipping.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".