The Polar Code Process and Sovereignty Bargains: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and Russia to POLARIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to a shift from the culture of compliance to the culture of benchmarking, the Polar Code process of ensuring safe operation and environmental protection in Polar waters is still ongoing. The risk and goal-based approaches embedded in significant parts of the Polar Code invite different stakeholders to participate in the development of Arctic shipping governance. The methodology used in the process, such as POLARIS, may serve as a common baseline, but its utility relies on further updates and validation. The reliability of decision-support systems depends largely on whether different stakeholders embrace the system and share their experiences to facilitate systematic updates. This article compares the approaches of the two major coastal states, Canada and Russia, to POLARIS as reflected in their coastal state systems of shipping control in the Canadian Arctic Waters and the Russian Northern Sea Route (NSR). Considering that much Arctic shipping occurs within the Canadian Arctic and the NSR, their regulatory approaches may affect POLARIS’s popularity, acceptance, and, eventually, success in providing a common regulatory baseline.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".