Under the Arctic Ice: Climate Futurism, Inuit Sovereignty, and Deep Seabed Mining in the Just Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Indigenous peoples of the Circumpolar North were the first to experi-ence the impacts of climate change, where the pace and scale of change has posed an existential threat to their way of life. For developed nations, the recession and thinning of the sea ice has increased the prospect of re-source exploitation, in turn igniting questions about sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean and its seabed. This article examines the implications of the extended continental shelf claims of the Arctic coastal States for the future governance of the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) and Inuit sovereignty. Part I advances a theoretical approach to the topic of deep seabed mining through the lens of climate futurism. Part II provides a critique of the Unit-ed Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, followed by a look at the re-gional governance of the CAO and the role of Inuit in circumpolar politics. Part III considers the prevailing regimes for deep seabed mining within and beyond national jurisdictions and their potential application to the CAO. Part IV concludes by evaluating potential arrangements for the governance of deep seabed mining in the Arctic, including a regional treaty or a poly-centric approach composed of specialized regimes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".