MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arctic Connectivity for Sustainable Development

2018· book-chapter· en· W2909101566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vasilii Erokhin

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice, progress, and proficiency in sustainability · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticGeopoliticsBoomThe arcticSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceGeographyBusinessEngineeringOceanographyPoliticsGeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic possesses about one-quarter of the world's untapped energy resources and abundant deposits of minerals. The region has always been in the focus of geopolitical interests of the USA, Russia, countries of Northern Europe, and Canada. However, with an opening of the previously ice-jammed waterways, new potential sites with vast resources have been identified and explored. Diversified transportation routes are of paramount importance to the economic and energy security of energy importing countries, particularly non-Arctic ones. As the Arctic becomes a focus of interest of many regional and non-regional actors, it is crucial to identify the dangers such a boom may bring. This chapter reviews the history of the Arctic policies of major actors in the region, overviews the contemporary approaches to the development of the Arctic, and discusses how varying interests and policies can be translated into the effective international regulations for the benefit of the entire Arctic region, its people, environment, and sustainable development.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice, progress, and proficiency in sustainabilitySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207