MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2620180587

Arctic Insecurity: Avoiding Conflict

2012· book· en· W2620180587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David D Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSecurity dilemmaDilemmaThe arcticPolitical scienceCompetition (biology)National securityInternational tradeDevelopment economicsBusinessEconomyGeographyEconomicsPoliticsOceanographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : In September 2009, two German ships sailed from South Korea to Denmark via the Arctic Northern Route, the first commercial vessels to use the long envisioned shortcut. Regional insecurity has led the five border nations--Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the US--to revise Arctic policies and to expand Arctic military capabilities. The five national policies are surprisingly similar and provide an excellent framework for cooperation. The military expansion is a classic security dilemma--one nations security measures are perceived as threatening to another. Resolving regional instability will settle the security dilemma. The shortcut opening is only the first of many changes as rapidly diminishing Arctic ice opens the door to significantly increased development in the region, which will bring vast energy wealth, fisheries, increased shipping, and tourism. It will also bring pollution, crime, territory disputes, and resource competition. This paper argues that anticipation of these consequences is creating regional instability and national insecurity among Arctic nations, which in turn is creating a security dilemma and potential nation-state conflict. It recommends the expansion of existing multilateral and bilateral alliances to avoid conflict while meeting the interests of Arctic nations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→