MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741943021 · doi:10.3917/ri.170.0107

Géopolitique du passage du Nord-Ouest. Une perspective de relations internationales

2017· article· fr· W2741943021 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frédèric Lasserre

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations internationales · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question du statut des eaux du passage du Nord-ouest pose fondamentalement la question de l’inclusion ou non de ce détroit maritime dans l’espace maritime souverain du Canada. Symétrique de la question du passage du Nord-est pour la Russie, elle oppose une interprétation du statut du passage comme détroit international ouvert au transit de tout navire selon les normes du « passage innocent », à l’inclusion de ce détroit dans des eaux intérieures, donc soumis à la pleine et entière souveraineté de ce pays. Avec les changements climatiques s’est développé un discours médiatique et scientifique abondant sur l’intérêt stratégique potentiel du passage du Nord-ouest : l’ouverture de celui-ci bouleverserait, selon plusieurs chercheurs, les stratégies des États par rapport à l’Arctique en dégageant des routes maritimes nettement plus courtes. Or, il s’avère que les relations entre États demeurent cordiales sur le sujet, malgré l’existence de désaccords. La question du passage du Nord-ouest n’a pas entraîné l’émergence d’un litige fort entre le Canada et d’autres pays au sujet de la souveraineté sur cette route arctique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations internationalesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207