MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625274053

Greenland critical of expert economic-independence report

2014· article· en· W2625274053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerard O'Dwyer

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentDanishOpposition (politics)Home ruleArcticPolitical scienceGeographyEconomyPoliticsEconomicsLawOceanographyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moreover, the report, titled'For the Benefit of Greenland' and authored 13 experts drawn mainly from the universities of Greenland and Copenhagen, cast grave doubts regarding the capacity of Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond's centre-left government coalition to implement reforms needed to maximise gains from the country's fledgling mining sector, despite Greenland's abundance of potentially commercial-sized rare earths, uranium and metal deposits. As for the opposition, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), Greenland's leftist-separatist party, and in particular, Sara Olsvig, an IA MP who holds one of Greenland's two seats in the Danish parliament (the Folketing) and who chairs the Danish parliament's Arctic Committee, said that one way to finance a diversified economy is by creating a profitable mining industry. [Minik Rossing] argued the island's confirmed mineral resource deposits fall short of providing a sustainable long-term basis to generate income for Greenland. The report calculated that in order for a Greenland economy to exist solely on mining, the island would need a minimum of 12 large-scale operating mines 2040. The report noted that just six commercial-scale mineral deposits have so far been identified. A mining-focused economic development strategy could also have serious negative consequences for Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants, said Rossing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207