MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245417579 · doi:10.1163/9789004434950_018

Canada’s Arctic Disputes: Cooperative Bridges, Foggy Futures

2020· book-chapter· en· W4245417579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David VanderZwaag

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaritime boundaryJurisdictionArcticUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaBoundary (topology)Futures contractPolitical scienceGeographyOceanographyLegislatureThe arcticScope (computer science)ConventionInternational lawLawGeologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four Canadian international disputes in the Arctic are reviewed. They are: the Beaufort Sea boundary; the legal status of the Northwest Passage; ownership of Hans Island and location of the boundary in the Lincoln Sea between Canada and Greenland; and disagreement over the scope of legislative and enforcement jurisdiction bestowed by Article 234 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention. Following a discussion of the four areas of conflict and the cooperative arrangements that have been forged to help calm international relations, the chapter explores the “foggy future” reality. When and how the Beaufort Sea boundary, Northwest Passage status, ownership of Hans Island and the location of the Lincoln Sea boundary will be resolved remains uncertain. Whether Article 234 will raise further international tussles over its use to justify unilateral shipping measures in the Arctic by coastal States, particularly Canada, is also unclear.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0270.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→