Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on insights from Critical Geopolitics and the science studies of Bruno Latour, this article argues that geopolitics in the Arctic today is not only a question of interstate competition but also a struggle about how to define space. If we challenge the notion of geography as being something given or natural, geographical space itself becomes a contested phenomenon. With such a perspective, it appears that there is a more profound geopolitical struggle taking place between indigenous people, represented in this article by the Inuit Circumpolar Council, and states, than there is between states. I introduce the term ‘cartopolitics’ to describe the way in which cartography and measurement establish a particular spatial reality that is necessary for international law to function in relation to sovereignty claims made by Arctic states. In contrast to this scientific rationality of space, the Inuit have laid claim to a different spatiality characterized by shared use and movement across ice. By implication we must recognise this contest over spatiality as a geopolitical struggle that is as important for life in the Arctic as the one that takes place between states only.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".