The Rivalry Over the Arctic Strategic Resources and Russia’s Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Climate changes have made previously inaccessible Arctic resources (oil, natural gas, and many metal ores, including nickel, zinc, lead and diamonds) available for extraction. With this change, the region has become an area of economic and geopolitical rivalry, where the five Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia, USA) compete with each other and external powers (e.g., China) for control over the territory and its strategic resources. The paper looks into whether those resources warrant the rivalry, and analyses methods and instruments used to establish the said control. Design/Methodology/Approach: The paper focuses on the Russian activities in the region and approaches them from the realistic perspective on international relations. The offensive realism of John J. Mearsheimer is considered as particularly important to the problem under the study. It posits that states strive to maximise their relative power in order to survive in the anarchic, self-help international system. Findings: In absence of legally-binding, universally-accepted territorial division of the Arctic and a great power able to prevent them to do so, Russian authorities have been gradually building up the country’s presence in the region. As a result, Russia’s control over part the Arctic and its strategic resources has become a fait accompli. It increased the country’s power and security, and strengthened position in future political negotiations on the Arctic issues. Practical Implications: The results of the research may contribute to the analysis of the economic and political situation in the Arctic and help companies to draft investment strategies toward the region. Originality/Value: The paper is a case study in geopolitical consequences of the climate changes and analysis of situation in the one of the most important regions of the world. It presents the state-of-affairs of energy investments in the region. It also contributes to the knowledge on economic methods and instruments of establishing control over the Arctic (a planned follow-up study will focus on military tools and activities).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".