ARCTIC POLICY OF THE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IN 1993–2011
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the Arctic agenda of the liberal and conservative cabinets of J. Chretien and S. Harper. Attention is also paid to the short period of P. Martin’s premiership. The author consistently considers the position of liberals based on the desire for international cooperation and the solution of common problems of the region. The head of the liberal Party, J. Chretien, sought cooperation with all the Arctic states; in particular, he repeatedly visited Russia on official visits. Prime Minister of the Conservative party S. Harper did not visit the Russian Federation, but made traditional visits to the Arctic, where he made policy statements. In contrast to the position of the liberals, the conservatives relied on the buildup of military power, thus seeking to strengthen their positions in the Arctic and on the world stage. In the future, events both inside and outside the country have led to the fact that the conservative position regarding the Arctic region has undergone some changes. On the eve of the 2011 parliamentary elections, the Conservatives retreated from the one-sided position of expanding military forces and began to pay attention to other problems in the region, among other things. The purpose of this article is to compare the political actions of the Conservative and Liberal parties of Canada in the Arctic. Despite the fact that there are separate studies of the political actions of both representatives of liberals and conservatives, the novelty of this article lies in comparing these different approaches over a certain period of time.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it