Features of the Arctic Policy of the United States and Canada and the Contribution of Their Northern Universities in Its Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States and Canada, along with Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden, are the so-called "official" Arctic countries. In the 21st century, The United States and Canada have begun to implement national Arctic strategies and updated them. The accepted documents have both similarities and differences. The United States and Canada are active members of the Arctic Council and view it as a platform for negotiations on a wide range of issues related to the development of the Arctic. The United States has come a long way in the Arctic, including in terms of regulation. Unlike other Arctic countries, the United States has a minimal area of access to the Arctic Ocean, their strategy as a whole is turned “outward”. The first Canadian strategy for the development of the Northern Territories (2013) is addressed directly to the development of the northern periphery of the country, formulates tasks for its sustainable socio-economic development, the development of indigenous peoples, and the support of sovereignty. In 2019, the updated strategy presented already combined national and international goals for the development of the Arctic and the North. To advance national interests in the Arctic, the US and Canada have developed and funded a geographically, infrastructure, stakeholder, and thematically differentiated Arctic research policy in which higher education institutions play an important role and are used to reinforce their geopolitical aspirations. The purpose of the article is to characterize the features of the Arctic strategies of the USA and Canada, as well as to analyze the contribution of universities and colleges in Alaska (USA) and the northern territories and provinces of Canada to the implementation of research policy in the Far North and the Arctic. The practical significance of the paper is in the possibility of its use in the educational process, as well as for the analysis and updating of international aspects of research activities by universities in the Arctic zone of Russia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".