MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115943382

THE ARCTIC: A DIALOGUE FOR DEVELOPMENT

2010· article· en· W3115943382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y.L. Mazurov, В. С. Тикунов

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Industry and Aquatic Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticThe arcticComputer scienceOceanographyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2010, Moscow hosted the International Arctic Forum “The Arctic—Territory of Dialogue.” The Arctic Forum focused its attention on elements of sustainable development in the Arctic region, i.e., ecology, economics, infrastructure, social services, security, and geopolitics. Many Russian experts and many well-known politicians and experts from leading research centers of the Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and USA), as well as by participants from France, Germany, Netherlands, and other countries attended the forum. Scholars and public figures from the European countries, representatives of the NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other institutions were also present at the conference. In his key-note speech the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society (RGS), Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir V. Putin formulated the principles of Russian national policy in the Arctic. Russian and foreign participants supported the idea of continuing dialogue on the Arctic under the RGS’s aegis and the transformation of the Arctic Forum into a permanent platform for discussions on the most urgent issues of the 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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.014
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0010.017
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicFood Industry and Aquatic BiologyFrench-language works237,207