Scientific approaches to defining the territorial boundaries of the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article deals with the problem of determining the boundaries of the Arctic territories belonging to the Arctic. The authors identified political, economic and other factors affecting the definition of territories belonging to the Arctic. Documents of subarctic countries, in particular, Canada, USA, Norway, etc., are considered. It is noted that in the Arctic countries there is no universal understanding of the territories belonging to the Arctic and the Arctic zone. It is especially difficult to determine the southern borders of the Arctic. Also there is no international agreement or treaty that unambiguously and unequivocally define the legal status of the Artic. In USSR main criteria for identifying the southern boundary of the Arctic were the Arctic Circle, the mean multiyear 10ºC isotherm of July, and the permafrost zone. However, the use of variables leads to the “mobility” of the Arctic boundaries, especially in the face of climate change on the planet. On the basis of Russian domestic documents, the boundaries of the territories that are included in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation are determined. The authors draw attention to the need for Russia to protect its sovereignty in the Arctic, the elimination and correction of errors in this direction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".