Sustainable development and environmental security in the countries of the circumpolar north
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a comparative analysis of the sustainable development of eight circumpolar countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the USA, Canada, Denmark, and Iceland. Sustainability is understood as the interdependent development of five spheres of human activity: economic, industrial, social, demographic, innovative-technological, and ecological. Each sphere is assessed in terms of endogenous variables that are influenced by exogenous factors. The demographic sphere is evaluated by population; the social – by the human development index (HDI); economic-industrial – GDP per capita (PPP); environmental – extent of exposure of the population to particulate matter in the atmosphere having a diameter of 2.5 μm; innovative-technological – by high-tech exports. The novelty lies in the analysis of the sustainable development of the respective countries using ADL-modelling. Five interdependent econometric equations are presented along with a method for calculating coefficients. The concept of economic, social and environmental sustainability coefficients is introduced. Each country’s sustainability index was calculated as the geometric mean index of economic, social and environmental sustainability. The results of a comparison of the circumpolar countries according to the sustainable development index are presented. The model can predict the development of each sphere of the respective country’s life-sustaining functions and determine the predicted values of the country’s sustainable development index, as well as to compare the development of countries on sustainable development and environmental safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".