MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996332901 · doi:10.1163/24519391-00402008

Reach for the Top Canada’s 2019 Extended Continental Shelf Claim in the Arctic

2019· article· en· W2996332901 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinental shelfArchipelagoArcticRidgeOceanographyThe arcticStructural basinGeographyContinental marginGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Canada’s 2019 claim to an extended continental shelf ( ecs ) in the Arctic. The claim follows the country’s Atlantic coast ecs submission of in 2013 to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the clcs ). The extent and basis of the 2019 claim are considered, including an apparent encroachment into the United States Alaskan shelf and a reliance on the Lomonosov Ridge as an extension of Canada’s Arctic archipelago. The competing claims of Denmark for Greenland and Russia are discussed. It is concluded that the western part of Canada’s claim in the Canada Basin adjacent to Alaska is supportable. However, the claim to an ecs around the Lomonosov Ridge is less certain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and PolicySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207