The Limits of the Russian Continental Shelf: Myths, Reality, Ministerial Errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the change of presidents in Russia the interest to the issue of the limits of the continental shelf has increased due to several developments, which took place in this sphere. Apart from reality there are several myths conjured by mass media.In 2001 Russia has made a submission to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf, which in its place made several recommendations in respect of the submission. Russia has conducted an extensive and expensive research on the Arctic basin to substantiate the claim according to the recommendations. Simultaneously delimitation negotiations were conducted with Norway and also there are issues with Japan in the Sea of Okhotsk.The author highly criticizes the position of the Ministry of natural resources and ecology and suggests that submission should be revocated. Further on the author points out myths related to the issue of the limits of continental shelf of Russia and particularly pinpoints rude mistakes of the media in this respect.In the article the author recommends to the Government of the Russian Federation to revocate its submission. Also he suggests starting negotiations with Canada on the delimitation of the continental shelves. Simultaneously such negotiations should be launched with Norway ad Denmark. The author provides a vigorous support for these recommendations and enumerates several reasons for the steps suggested by him.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".