THE ARCTIC COUNCIL AS AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF THE STATE COOPERATION: THE PARTICIPATION OF RUSSIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: the article estimates the activity of Russia in the Arctic Council by highlighting the following criteria: the number of Russia's delegates to participate in the Council meetings; the number of projects funded by Russia; the number of projects initiated by Russia; the number of comments made by Russia's representatives at the Council meetings. Aims: to assess Russia's activity in the Council's work, the intensity of Russia's interaction with this institution, to identify correlations between Russia's participation in the work of the Council and the implementation of environmental policy in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Methods: neorealism, the systems approach and the documents analysis. Results: the activity of Russia in the work of the Council was evaluated; correlations between the intensity of Russia's participation in the Council's projects and the implementation of the Russian environmental policy in the Arctic zone were established. Conclusion: Russia started modernizing its policy in the Arctic region and taking an active part in the work of the Arctic Council in 2004, with the peak of this activity being in 2004–2006. Since 2013 Russia has re-activated its activities in the Council. Now the number of delegates from Russia is proportionate to the number of other member countries representatives. The country is the leader in financing the Council's projects, along with Canada. Within the framework of its obligations, Russia is actively implementing the policy of ensuring environmental security in its Arctic region, the work being carried out in 5 main areas. In general, ensuring environmental security and protecting the unique natural environment of the Arctic region are priorities for all Arctic countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".