THE ARCTIC REGION IN POLITICS OF AMERICAN STATES: PAST AND PRESENT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the historical experience and the basic stages of development of the North American Arctic states in the twentieth century. With the new data, and based on the historical method, the article reveals changing relationships of these states to the Arctic in their successive temporary development during the second half of XX – beginning of XXI centuries. The article features the evolution of the position of the authorities in Ottawa and Washington to the region in the context of developing and conducting them in the national interests and security policy. The conclusion is that the policy of the US government and Canada to coordinate their actions in the region under the pretext of defending national interests and to counter external threats, has some historical positive outcome, along with some well-known commitments. Security Policy in these countries limits the competence of the state threats to their territorial integrity, which does not give the government the authority to undue interference in areas that are governed by market forces and civil society. In the light of the impending changes caused by the election of D. Trump, this circumstance should be exploited for excluding the very possibility of military conflict from the political process the Arctic countries.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it