The EU needs a two-tier approach towards the Arctic:a general policy for the Circumpolar Arctic and a concrete strategy for the European Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new EU Arctic communication will probably be published in the first months of 2016. It is expected that there will be a clearer differentiation between the two Arctic policy spaces in which EU operates, namely the European Arctic and the Circumpolar Arctic. These are associated with different sets of issues and are managed by different EU services, but so far they have been confounded in EU policy statements. The EU should go one step further and devise a two-tier policy: on one hand, a general policy referring to the Circumpolar Arctic, on the other, a concretized strategy dealing with specific challenges for the European Arctic. While still brought under the umbrella of one document, these general policy and specific strategy tiers could be drafted through partly separate processes led by different EU services and the European Commission’s directorates general, with participation of different stakeholders. This is the only feasible way to accommodate both the EU’s circumspection regarding engagement in Arctic Ocean and Circumpolar affairs and the European northernmost regions’ expectations towards the EU’s Arctic policy. As the drafting of the new communication is at an advanced stage, the upcoming document should at least envisage exploring the need and possibility of formulating a two-tier Arctic “policy + strategy”.
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 | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".