Arctic – the new “Great Game” or peaceful cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic area with its harsh climate and austere icecap has not raised any great international passions in the past. However, enduring global warming has opened new views on exploitation of that area. If the climate gets steadily warmer in the future, it could mean the opening of the Northwest Passage for ship routes. On the other hand, it is estimated that the region has got remarkable gas reserves, which could amount to as much as 30 % of the world’s undiscovered reserves, as well as oil, which encompasses some 13 % of world’s undiscovered stocks. As for now, any serious international conflicts in this area are not likely, even though there are real expectations and claims imposed by several nations. The current peaceful cooperation is supported by feasible treaties that are already in place. Until lately, the work of the Arctic Council has not raised any great international attentiveness, but the expected development in the area has activated stronger interest from many countries, and not only those from the Arctic region. There are several regional disputes among the five states, USA, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark about the Arctic Ocean. As expert opinion still differs quite significantly about the resources available in the Arctic region and about the feasibility of the Northwest and Northeast routes, it is hard to say if there are any practical economic gains to be achieved. Although cooperation between the nations has been peaceful, the military presence in the area is increasing. Moreover, it remains to be seen how the recent Ukrainian crisis will affect the development in the area.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".