Supporting Implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic Science Agreement entered into force on 23 May 2018 with the Kingdom of Denmark as the depositary is now the third binding legal agreement among all eight Arctic states since 2011, arising with shared leadership from the United States and Russian Federation as co-chairs of the three preceding task forces. The Arctic Science Agreement recognizes the “excellent existing scientific cooperation already under way in many organizations” with the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) as well as IASSA, UArctic and indigenous knowledge institutions among many others. However, as suggested in a November 2017 policy forum published in the journal Science: “effective implementation of the agreement will require its associated networks (including IASC, UArctic, IASSA, and partner organizations) to help strengthen research and education across borders.” Objective of this panel dialogue is to consider how the scientific community can best assist to achieve effective implementation of the Artic Science Agreement, with strategies such as: • Creation of a communication network with researchers that would aid government officials with their implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement; • Application of an information campaign to alert the broader Arctic research community about the Arctic Science Agreement; or • Development of case studies that might the trigger applications of the Arctic Science Agreement, such as with the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate – MOSAiC – project starting in 2019 with more than 120 M Euros across the international consortium. This session also builds on earlier dialogues, including with the International Science Initiative in the Russia Arctic (ISIRA) in Moscow (November 2017) and in Davos (June 2018) as well as in the Ambassadorial Panel on Arctic Science Diplomacy at the 2018 UArctic Congress last month in Oulu, leading into the 2nd Arctic Science Ministerial next week. The Arctic Science Agreement has the potential to be international, interdisciplinary and inclusive (aspiring to be holistic), bridging the natural sciences and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge with their different methodologies, all of which reveal patterns and trends that are the bases for informed decision-making – integrating questions, data, evidence and options with science as the ‘study of change.’ Importantly, the Arctic Science Agreement reflects a common interest to enhance scientific cooperation even when diplomatic channels among nations are unstable, recognizing first "the importance of maintaining peace, stability, and constructive cooperation in the Arctic.” Such science diplomacy underlies decisions about governance mechanisms and built infrastructure that require close coupling to achieve progress with sustainable development, which is recognized as a ‘common Arctic issue’ by the eight Arctic states and six Indigenous peoples organizations in the Ottawa Declaration that established the Arctic Council in 1996. Translating the general language of the Arctic Science Agreement into enhanced action, however, requires continuous collaboration among diplomatic and scientific communities. This panel is at the early stages of this journey. Each of the panellists will provide 3-minute opening remarks with their written versions to be compiled in a publication of Science Diplomacy Action as a legacy of this dialogue. Following these opening interventions, there will be interactions among the panelists followed by their exchanges with the audience. The Arctic Science Agreement is a special step into OUR COMMON FUTURE with hope and inspiration across generations. It now gives me great pleasure to introduce the panelists in the order of their presentations.
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 | 0.210 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.009 |
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".