Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the United States is an Arctic nation, the Arctic has seldom figured prominently in US policy. In January 2009 the US released its new Arctic policy. Arctic Region Policy signals that the US is beginning to understand that the Arctic is changing in a manner that concerns its vital national interests. The core Arctic issues facing the US are resource development and international circumpolar relations. The development of oil and gas reserves in Alaska is discussed in the context of sustainable development and US domestic energy security, which are often at odds with each other. In regards to circumpolar relation, the US has traditionally been a reluctant Arctic power. It has been unwilling to take the initiative in the area of international Arctic policy. Now, the United States also must act to improve its participation in the main Arctic institutions in order to strengthen cooperation among the Arctic nations. But at the same time, the US must now face a geo-political environment that is becoming more complicated and possibly dangerous than was the case in the last decade. Thus their new policy also emphasizes the priority the US places on security by maintaining a strong military presence in the Arctic. All of these actions are already having an impact on their Arctic neighbors including Canada. This will continue to be the case as American activity increase in the region. Now that the Arctic is transforming due to climate change, resource development, globalization, and geopolitical factors,the United States can no longer ignore the Arctic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".