Protecting polar environments: coherency in regulating Arctic shipping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter investigates new international legislation aimed at protecting the fragile polar environment. Climate change and the melting of the sea ice have brought international attention to the Arctic Ocean. The climate change in Arctic has both global and regional environmental implications. Much of the attention has been on the opportunities for new and extended uses of previously inaccessible marine areas. Particularly the prospect of reducing sailing distance between Europe to Asia by the use of the Arctic shipping routes has raised considerable interest. However, shipping through these waters are challenging of several reasons including legal, unavailability of infrastructure, climate and ice conditions. The negotiations of the Polar Code in the IMO come as a recognition of a need of additional and mandatory regulations of shipping in these waters for safety and environmental protection purposes. In this chapter, the safety and pollution prevention regulations of the Polar Code are investigated in order to assess whether the challenges have been addressed. The Arctic coastal States have a particular interest in ensuring safe and environmentally friendly shipping in their waters. The chapter investigates their legislation and whether it may assist in implementing the Polar Code regulations. Of particular interest is the legislation of Canada and Russia, the two major Arctic coastal States. Their legislation of foreign flagged vessels is based on the Arctic exception of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 234). The entry into force of the Polar Code in 2017 raises questions on the relationship between the Polar Code and national legislation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".