Bibliographic record
Abstract
European Parliament Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance, 2010 O.J. (C 9) 41, 43 ("Suggests that the Commission should be prepared to pursue the opening of international negotiations designed to lead to the adoption of an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic, having as its inspiration the Antarctic Treaty, as supplemented by the Madrid Protocol signed in 1991, but respecting the fundamental difference represented by the populated nature of the Arctic and the consequent rights and needs of the peoples and nations of the Arctic region; believes, however, that as a minimum starting-point such a treaty could at least cover the unpopulated and unclaimed area at the centre of the Arctic Ocean"); see also Timo Koivurova, Gaps in International Regulatory Frameworks for the Arctic Ocean, in ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN 139-55 (Paul A. Berkman & Alexander N. Vylegzhanin eds., 2013); New Rules Needed for the Arctic, WWF GLOBAL (Aug.17, 2007), http://wwf.panda.org/?111440/New-rules-needed-for-the-Arctic [https://perma.cc/WY7P-2TBP]("With the melting of arctic sea ice, which allows the opening of new shipping routes and makes possible the exploration of potentially vast reserves of minerals, oil and gas, WWF believes that the international Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)-the UN body regulating these activities-is no longer adequate for the Arctic.'We need a new approach, which includes thinking about a solid Arctic Treaty and a multilateral governance body,' Dr. Hamilton added.'This is the only way to ensure the implementation of sustainable development regimes and help the Arctic adapt to the severe impact of climate change and ultimately stabilize the world's climate.'").
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".