An Explanation for the Growing Institutional Capacity of the Arctic Council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Northern Review 48 (2018): 51–80In 1996 the Arctic states—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States—created the Arctic Council as an institutionally weak body. It lacked bureaucracy to provide direction for the institution or a stable budget. The council had weak institutional capacity. In 2011, the council announced the creation of a permanent secretariat. In 2014, it announced the creation of a “project support instrument,” which is similar to a budget. Why did states support increasing the institutional capacity of the Arctic Council? The Arctic Council’s institutional capacity is growing because all states perceive that this is in their interest as it helps the institution carry out its expanded mandate; however, states have increased capacity in such a way as to ensure the council will not become overly powerful. In addition, effective negotiation tactics by the Nordic governments made the expansion of the council’s institutional capacity more likely. Most current literature explains that the council has weak institutional capacity and its expansion has been a natural evolution. This work contributes that the council’s expansion has been a political process, resulting from tactful political manoeuvre and negotiation. The method utilized is historical process tracing, drawing on council documents and interviews with key council decision-makers. Scholars who seek a stronger and more activist Arctic Council should consider its continued weakness.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".