Is a Melting Arctic Making the Arctic Council Too Cool? Exploring the Limits to the Effectiveness of a Boundary Organization
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".