MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792084068 · doi:10.1002/wcc.507

Implications of climate change for shipping: Opening the Arctic seas

2018· article· en· W2792084068 on OpenAlexafffund
Adolf K.Y. Ng, Jonathan Andrews, David G. Babb, Yufeng Lin, Austin Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research ChairsTransport CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsArcticClimate changeThe arcticPerspective (graphical)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEconomic impact analysisEnvironmental planningBusinessOceanographyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses the value and environmental feasibility of Arctic shipping by reviewing the relevant scientific and economic peer‐reviewed literature. From the physical perspective, this paper examines the impact of climate change on sea ice and marine weather and considers the resultant consequences for Arctic shipping accessibility. From an economic perspective, it reviews the major research investigating the economic feasibility of diverting ships from conventional shipping routes to Arctic routes, the attitudes of shipping stakeholders, and other major factors affecting the prospect of Arctic shipping. This review also identifies important research gaps. Ultimately, we find that the complex environmental and economic dynamics of the Arctic suggest that an appropriate understanding of Arctic shipping will require close collaboration between natural and social scientists. This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations126
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate ChangeSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207