The Arctic strategic planning in the context of sustainable development of the region: foreign experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article describes the key areas of strategic planning for the Arctic socio-economic development of the countries in the Northern Europe and Northern America from the point of two concepts: spatial organization of economy and sustainable regional development. The results of the Arctic region development are quantitative and qualitative positive changes in the socio-economic situation. They generate spatial modification taking into account the Arctic conditions of the environment of existence. The aim of the work is to study and accumulate the best foreign practices of applying sustainable development principles for the purposes of strategic planning in the Russian Arctic.The article is based on the analysis of the Arctic strategies in Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the United States, with an emphasis on ranking the interests of these countries in the Arctic and public policy instruments. The author focuses on the issues of northern territories’ sustainable development and the results assessment of the implementation of strategic goals in the Arctic countries. The author presents a comparative characteristic of strategic priorities within the framework of the Arctic economic development.The research made it possible to identify common cornerstone problems that require the attention of governments: climate change and environment, rational economic development of territories and integration of traditional lifestyle of indigenous people into sustainable regional development. Similar priorities and tasks for the lean development of the Arctic and positive dynamics of regional development make it possible to use its results within the Arctic interregional cooperation. Strategic priorities are compared with statistical indicators values of development and subjective assessments of population on the same characteristics of life quality in the High North. Similar estimates of comparative analysis are consequence of the Arctic policy pursuedby the governments of these countries. The author underlines the necessity of foreign experience accumulation in the process of regional strategies’ development in the Russian Federation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".