The Mulroney Government and the Problem of Sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic in 1980s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mulroney Government's decision to draw direct baselines around the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and explicitly assert Canadian sovereignty over these waters marked a move away from a functional approach that was aimed merely to increase Canadian control over shipping in these waters. From that time onwards, the straight baseline method has been a key element in the justification for Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. As the largest Arctic power with similar positions on some Arctic issues (the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route) and a potential field of conflict of interest (the continental shelf), it is crucial for Russia to understand the nuances of Canada's position regarding its sovereignty over various types of space in the Arctic (land, sea space, continental shelf). The article draws on a wide range of sources: transcripts of debates in the House of Commons; news articles; ministerial documents and statements by their leaders; and the memoirs of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Significant among the sources are articles by Canadian lawyers of the time who substantiated the benefits for Canada of using the straight baseline method to justify its sovereignty in the Arctic. The author concludes that the measures taken by the Mulroney Government are important for the international recognition of Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".