Canada and the Problem of Sovereignty in the Arctic in 1950s-1960s: from Terrestrial to Maritime Sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1950s Canada's policy of assertion of its sovereignty in the Arctic was undergoing major changes. By the beginning of the 1950s Canadian lawyers made an important conclusion that Canada's sovereignty over all lands in its Arctic sector can be justified by the right of effective occupation without involving a sector theory. Since 1954 Canada began to perceive the problem of sovereignty in the Arctic not as a problem of sovereignty over land but as a question of sovereignty over sea space. The shift in focus – from land to sea – has forced Canada to abandon the sector theory as unnecessary and ineffective. In the mid-1950s the government of L. Saint Laurent decided to limit the country's maritime claims in the Arctic to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago. The straight baseline method, recognized by the International Court of Justice in 1951, was chosen as the legal basis for such claims. In the first half of the 1960s the governments of J. Diefenbaker and L. Pearson made efforts to legalize Canada's extended maritime borders in the Arctic at the international level, but failed both because of their unwillingness to aggravate relations with the United States for this and Canada's desire to act strictly within the framework of international the law of the sea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".