Foreign experience in regulating the activities of large corporate structures in the extraction of Arctic resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevance. In terms of implementing large production projects, the Arctic is one of the most challenging regions in the world. This is due to geographic remoteness, extreme temperatures, difficult ice conditions, a vulnerable environment and the presence of indigenous people concerned about any outside interference. Global experience shows that the development of the Arctic territories is untenable without participation of large corporations and their implementation of large-scale Arctic projects. The capabilities of medium-sized businesses to influence the development of the Arctic territories are incomparable with the capabilities of large corporate structures in terms of their system-forming effects. At the same time, ensuring the necessary investments for the development of the Arctic territories requires improving the state regulation of subsoil use from the position of strengthening the incentive nature of the system of measures used. The purpose of the study is to generalize and analyze foreign experience in regulating the process of developing subsoil resources in foreign Arctic countries. Research methods – a systematic approach, generalizations, comparative analysis, comparisons, etc. Results. The experience of subsoil use regulation in the Arctic territories in the USA (Alaska), Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia is generalized and analyzed. It has been determined that the approaches to regulating the process of developing subsoil resources are correlated with the state structure of the countries: unitary or federal. The form of subsoil ownership in each of the listed countries and the procedure for granting subsoil plots for use are considered. Most attention is paid to the economic mechanism of regulation. It is proved that, depending on the economic model, measures to support corporate business and economic incentives used by countries to achieve strategic goals in the Arctic have many differences, but a similar nature. Special tax regimes, rent control measures, financial support, which is in the nature of investments, and other financial instruments are used as incentives. The specificity of the tax policy of each of the countries under consideration is disclosed, a number of factors influencing the amount of royalties, the procedure for the distribution of collected taxes on corporations in the Arctic zone between the budgets of the federation and provinces, etc., are determined. Common tools for all states have been identified and the existence of coordination procedures has been confirmed to harmonize the interests of corporations and the state. The experience of taxation of regional corporations in the Arctic territories of Russia and its disadvantages are briefly highlighted. Conclusions. The imperfection of the institutional framework of the Russian Arctic requires the adoption of new legislative acts, as well as changes in taxation, the implementation of a system of incentives from the state. It is advisable to use many elements of the economic mechanism of foreign countries to expand the capabilities of corporations involved in the development of Arctic subsoil resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".