Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pursuit of independence is deeply rooted in the soul of the inhabitants of Greenland. The difference in the approach to this problem amounts to the establishment of the time and the conditions on the basis of which Greenland is supposed to become independent. The island, which is the greatest island in the world, has huge deposits of minerals, including metals of rare-earth metals and uranium. On the one hand, complete independence may be an opportunity for the development for the inhabitants but on the other hand, independence may also become a source of numerous dangers. Is Greenland, a country with a slight native population, able to cope – in terms of organisation and the available staff – with the expansion of foreign capital, including the great numbers of foreign workers who are engaged in the development of industrial infrastructure? Is it not better to continue the status quo – a relationship (even a loose one) with Denmark, and thus a relationship with the European Union? A close relationship with the EU and the NATO may, in the future, be consistent with the interests of Greenlanders. In the remote and in the most recent past, Greenland was colonised by the peoples of the Far North (paleo-Eskimo and Eskimo peoples) and Scandinavians. Both Scandinavians – in the early Middle Ages – and subsequently the Inuit populated abandoned lands, lands which belonged to no one. To put it explicitly, no one stole land from anyone. Therefore it is important that in the discussion about the problem of independence which continues between Greenlanders and Danes one should not place historical problems as questions which render dialogue difficult.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".