MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982393067 · doi:10.4000/nordiques.422

Le retour du mythe des passages arctiques : quel trafic maritime dans l’Arctique au XXIe siècle ?

2019· article· fr· W2982393067 on OpenAlexaff
Frédèric Lasserre

Bibliographic record

VenueNordiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le contexte des changements climatiques et de la fonte accélérée de la banquise arctique, les médias et bon nombre d’articles scientifiques se font l’écho des possibles autoroutes maritimes qui structureraient les passages arctiques au XIXe siècle. Ces scénarios reposent souvent sur la projection de la fonte de la glace, des analyses de coûts et l’idée que des trajets plus courts seront nécessairement attractifs, mais négligent les aspects logistiques et économiques de la navigation commerciale en mer englacée. Leur enthousiasme s’enracine plutôt dans une lecture fantasmée des passages arctiques héritée des grands voyages d’exploration du XVIe au XIXe siècle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordiquesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207