Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transnational crimes committed in the maritime domain pose a real threat to international security today. Climate change and opening of shipping routes in the Arctic actualize the need to assess this type of security threats for the polar region. While the official Arctic strategies of the five coastal states – Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the USA, – in general, acknowledge threats to maritime security stemming from nonstate organized criminal actors, there is neither system-based understanding of these threats, differentiated approach to assessing specific types of potential maritime criminal activities, nor developing practical measures aimed at their prevention and suppression. Basing on the analysis of different maritime crimes, it seems reasonable to ascertain a generally low probability of their large-scale emergence in the Arctic in the nearest future. Main reasons for that are severe climate conditions, as well as economic and political stability of the region. However, the apparent and anticipated increase of Arctic shipping and development of new types of economic activities, such as tourism, can lead to increased risks related to transnational maritime criminal activity in the Arctic. In this regard, to date, the most real threat is posed by such crimes as terroristic attacks on cruise ships, illegal transportation of drugs and weapons using the main Arctic marine routes, illegal migration. It is obvious that the Arctic coastal states lack sufficient resources to efficiently address the threats related to transnational maritime crimes. In this context, special focus should be made on enhancing regional interstate cooperation in the field. Taking into account that the only regional mechanism responsible for enhancing coordination of national bodies regarding security-related issues is the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, it would be reasonable to endow this institution with the competence to develop joint measures for the suppression of potential maritime criminal activities in the Arctic. This could be made through development of a pan-Arctic legally binding agreement that would specify practical measures stipulated by other international agreements in the field of suppressing certain types of maritime crimes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".