Existing Conflicts in the Arctic and the Risk of Escalation:Rhetoric and Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, both the scholarly public and journalists have started to discuss the likelihood of an outburst of new conflicts in the Arctic and an escalation of the existing ones. Interstate disputes such as the dispute of Canada and the USA in the Beaufort Sea over the border delimitation have already lasted for several decades. But an escalation of these conflicts is not inevitable. Nowadays, in terms of the level of institutionalization of the relations and state interdependence, the Arctic is equal to other world regions, and the UNCLOS provides a sufficient framework for non-violent conflict resolution. Also the nature of the existing conflicts, the accessible technology, and the Arctic environment imply a conciliatory solution and promote cooperation between the Arctic states. Even though the current dynamics somewhat increase the conflict potential of the region, its level is definitely not as high as indicated by some authors.Moreover, articles presenting alarmist visions of conflict escalation in the region often count on incomplete and oversimplified data and assumptions and can hardly survive a rigorous verification and a confrontation with the reality of the situation.
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 | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".