Consistency and Adaptability: New Aspects of the Arctic Policy of Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is an analytical review of Sweden’s Arctic policy since the adoption of the country’s first Arctic strategy in 2011 until nowadays. The priorities of Sweden’s 2011 Arctic Strategy in the areas of environmental protection, economic cooperation and human life in the Arctic are analyzed. Sweden’s chairmanship programs at the Arctic Council for 2011–2013 and at the Barents Euro-Arctic Council for 2017–2019 are assessed for compliance with the national Arctic strategy priorities. The participation of Sweden in projects under the auspices of the Arctic Council in the 2010s and at present is presented. The content of the updated Sweden’s Arctic strategy of 2020 is analyzed. The updated strategy is compared with the strategy of 2011; the reasons for the enlargement of the thematic coverage of Sweden’s Arctic strategy of 2020 (additional priorities are international cooperation in the Arctic, security and stability in the region, and scientific cooperation) are explained. The reasons for Sweden’s emphasis on security issues in the Arctic are explained. It is concluded that Sweden’s Arctic policy from 2011 to the present is consistent and adaptable due to the changing climatic, economic, political and military situation in the Arctic region. The desire of Sweden to cooperate with the Nordic countries and NATO in the field of military cooperation in the Arctic is marked as a new tendency in Sweden’s Arctic policy. The new role of the European Union, Canada and Germany in the implementation of Swedish Arctic policy at the present stage is traced. Sweden’s Arctic strategy is also estimated in correspondence to the provisions of the Arctic Council Strategic Plan for 2021–2030.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".