MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241822896 · doi:10.5040/9780755620470

Negotiating Diplomacy in the New Europe

2012· book· en· W4241822896 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueI.B.Tauris eBooks · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsDiplomacyForeign policyPolitical scienceInternational relationsNegotiationDilemmaArcticPoliticsInternational tradeEconomyPosition (finance)GeographyPolitical economySociologyLawBusinessEconomicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the ice around the Arctic landmass recedes progressively further each year, the territory has become a flashpoint in world affairs. New and lucrative trade routes from East to West are now becoming accessible for shipping lanes and military deployment, and the Arctic is known to be home to large gas and oil reserves. Yet the territorial boundaries of the region remain ill-defined. In response to these geographical changes the Scandinavian countries, especially Denmark and Norway, have begun staking large proprietary claims in the face of pressure from the major powers - Russia, Canada, the US and China - for the trade routes to be designated as International Waters. Here, Norwegian scholar Leif Christian Jensen shows how Norway has undergone a positional shift after declaring its assertive position on the Arctic in 2005. Its disputes with Russia have created a new foreign policy dilemma, and a new set of 'red-lines'

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it