MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805597985

The Arctic as a Food Producing Region. Phase 1: Current status in five Arctic countries

2018· article· en· W2805597985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silje Elde, Ingrid Kvalvik, Bjørg Helen Nøstvold, Rune Rødbotten, Sigríður Dalmannsdóttir, Hilde Halland, Eivind Uleberg, Ólafur Reykdal, Jón Árnason, Páll Gunnar Pálsson, Rakel Halldórsdóttir, Óli Þór Hilmarsson, Gunnar Þórðarson, Þóra Valsdóttir, R. Knudsen, David Natcher, Daria Sidorova

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticCurrent (fluid)The arcticPhase (matter)GeographyOceanographyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the "Arctic as a food producing region" - project is to assess the potential for increased production and added value of food from the Arctic region, with the overarching aim of improving economic and social conditions of Arctic communities. This report is the output from the first phase of the project, providing a description of the main food production and examples of conditions for food production in the Arctic areas of the countries involved. This will form the basis for further analysis of opportunities, driving forces and barriers for further development of arctic food production, in the next phase of the project. The project has participation from Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Russia, and is endorsed by the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207