The United States and International Straits: Two Cases from the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom of the seas is one of the most debated principles of the law of the sea. International straits which connect international waters constitute an inevitable part of this debate. The impact of Europe on the development of international law began to be challenged in the 19th century with the rise of non-European actors. The United States has been a consistent supporter of this principle since its inception as an independent state. Since the first quarter of the 19th century rules and regulations governing navigation through international straits has been a specific case of interest for the US. In line with this policy the US pursued policies that would abandon practices violating the principle of freedom of the seas. Within this framework this article examines the US policy on international straits through two cases. The article takes the cases of the Danish Sound and Turkish Straits and explores the reasons why it preferred different policies in these cases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| 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".