As War in Ukraine Upends a Quarter Century of Enduring Arctic Cooperation, the World Needs the Whole Arctic Council Now More Than Ever
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance Online Article published December 16, 2022 The Arctic Council, formed in 1996, is a unique organization, with legitimacy that extends across the entirety of the Circumpolar World, representing a diverse mosaic of states and Indigenous Peoples united in their efforts to protect their fragile ecosystems, environments, and communities. The Council has nurtured an impressive and enduring consensus among its diverse ecosystem of asymmetrical actors for over a quarter century. But all that changed on March 3, 2022, when the Council’s seven democratic member states (the A7) announced an historic “pause” of their Council participation in protest of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This was not the first time tensions over Russian aggression in Ukraine strained the Council’s impressive track record for circumpolar unity; in 2014, after Russia’s first assault upon Ukraine, the United States and Canada jointly boycotted a Moscow-hosted meeting of the Council’s Task Force for Action on Black Carbon and Methane (TFBCM), but soon thereafter rejoined their fellow Council members in the spirit of Arctic cooperation. While Russia’s actions in Ukraine are reprehensible, boycotting the Council while Russia held its rotating chair closed off an important off-ramp to defuse rising international tensions between Russia and NATO. Indeed, Russia’s portion of the Arctic represents fully half the Circumpolar World, and the issues facing the Arctic—of which climate change is perhaps the most pressing for all stakeholders, small and large—cannot be paused. There are no half-way solutions to the future of the Arctic, whether it’s peacetime or wartime—the stakes are simply too high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".