Is a Melting Arctic Making the Arctic Council Too Cool? Exploring the Limits to the Effectiveness of a Boundary Organization
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
Abstract The Arctic Council offers an interesting and unexplored case study of boundary work between policy makers, scientific communities, and Indigenous organizations in the circumpolar region. Its notable success can be attributed to the production of high‐quality policy products, including the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and the Arctic Human Development Report—both of which meet the criteria of boundary objects. However, this article goes beyond applying the concept of the boundary organization to inform our understanding of the Arctic Council. Rather, I use the Council as a case study to explore the dynamic environment in which these types of institutions exist. I argue that, as a result of a number of factors, the Arctic Council is being pushed to be more action oriented. Furthermore, I consider the implications of this pressure for the institutional design of the Council and where the Council looks to affirm its credibility, saliency, and legitimacy. I conclude that the Arctic Council's effectiveness as a boundary organization is being compromised by pressures for it to be more action oriented.
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 | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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