MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597106437 · doi:10.1108/jec-08-2015-0040

Social impacts of climate change and resource development in the Arctic

2017· article· en· W2597106437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gisele M. Arruda, Sebastian Krutkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticJurisdictionPolitical scienceClimate changeIndigenousGeographyPoliticsCorporate governanceTourismEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessOceanographyLawEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to explore the socio-political implications of climate change as the melting ice ignites new debates over territorial sovereignty of Arctic coastal states. Previously ice-jammed waterways are now open, and a number of recent geological surveys have identified new potential sites with vast energy resources. Competition over resources causes states to question each other’s jurisdiction over specific parts of the Arctic. What used to be internal waters of one particular state can now be referred to as international waters by other actors interested in the benefits of resource extraction. Arctic indigenous groups, especially the Inuit, and Sami are directly affected by the current governance patterns that are fragmented across too many different bodies dealing with maritime navigation, tourism, fisheries and administration. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a comparative study based on literature review combined with regional reports related to climatic and social impacts analysed jointly with live elements provided by international conferences discussions, workshops and direct conversations in “petit comités” style held in Norway, Greenland and Canada in the period of October 2014 until the first quarter of July 2015, with the representatives of Sami and Inuit communities. Findings The paper demonstrates that Arctic governance is currently fragmented and the largest inter-governmental organisation in the region, the Arctic Council, has only advisory powers, and although its norm-making method helps with the design, it is not effective to implement Arctic-wide policies for responsible management of energy resources. Research limitations/implications The research considered methodological aspects like the difficulty in measuring the elements researched mainly when dealing with the diverse nature of responses from the indigenous populations to environmental impacts and the varied nature of effects in different studied areas. Practical implications As the Arctic is set to become the main global resource base and a major trade corridor, it is crucial to identify the dangers that poor institutional design can cause in relation to the control of extractive industries, sustainable development and the well-being of the region’s indigenous population. Social implications In addition to governance reform, social arrangements should follow to ensure the indigenous populations can also participate in the process to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change on their traditional livelihood strategies. Originality/value The paper provides an overview on governance reform and social arrangements to ensure that indigenous populations can also participate in the process to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change on their traditional livelihood strategies. As the Arctic is set to become the main global resource base and a major trade corridor, the paper identified the risks of poor institutional design in relation to the control of extractive industries, sustainable development and the well-being of the region’s indigenous population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global EconomySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207