Geopolitics of Arctic shipping: the state of icebreakers and future needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The starting point of the analysis in hand is a brief discussion of the so-called ‘Arctic Passages.’ Considering that ice and ice-pacts will remain a concern in the future, the support of icebreakers will still be needed to facilitate the safe passage of ships. Describing the state of these types of vessels currently available is the main aim, with a particular focus on key state players: the Russian Federation (RF), the United States of America (USA) and Canada. Additionally, a critical evaluation of future plans in relation to the introduction of icebreakers into service is taking place. Russia has already built and operates a certain number of vessels that are fully capable to handle current traffic demands, as well as the expected future increase. On the opposite direction, both Canada and USA are facing problems to deal with current demands and the situation during the next couple of years looks rather troublesome. Their obvious lack of icebreaking capabilities is somewhat disconcerting given the expected demand in the Arctic region in coming years coupled with the lengthy acquisition and production process required for a new icebreaking fleet. An acceleration of their acquisition plans and activities to cover the identified gap in icebreakers’ services is clearly a high priority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".