Military-political strategies of the United States and Canada in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the military and political specifics of the Arctic zone, which is part of the United States and Canada. The authors used such research methods as system analysis, problem analysis, logical analysis, and historical analysis. The authors draw attention to the fact that issues of strategic stability and security appeared in US developments in the 1950s and the first researcher to officially propose this concept was Robert McNamara, us Secretary of defense in 1961-1967. Despite the fact that in 1972 the first Treaty on the limitation of missile DEFENSE systems and OSV-1 was signed. the cold war during the Soviet-US rivalry made the Arctic a zone of strategic confrontation with the routes of nuclear strikes. The authors note that although the cold war ended long ago, the Arctic region has not lost its strategic importance. The authors consider the main directions of military-strategic activities of the two countries, the dynamics of development and key elements of the strategy. In conclusion, the authors conclude that the military strategy of both the United States and Canada in the Arctic does not provide for military threats and the primary risks are environmental and social. The practical and theoretical significance of the work is that the Arctic is strategically important for all countries of the Arctic zone, so the military and political strategies of these States are of considerable interest both for scientific discourse and for determining Russia's foreign and domestic policy in this region.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".