Arctic Science Diplomacy of the USA and Canada: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the U.S. and Canadian Arctic Science Diplomacy (ASD) in a comparative perspective. The authors have identified the main reasons – scientific and geopolitical – for the use of the ASD in the region by these two countries, as well as by key state and non-state actors involved in its coordination and implementation. The ASD priorities for both countries include climate change implications, environmental problems, oceanography, geophysics, glaciology, permafrost, Arctic flora and fauna, conservation of biodiversity, Arctic shipping and transport infrastructure, rational use of Arctic mineral and biological resources, local communities, indigenous peoples, integration of traditional knowledge into science, and so on. Based on the analysis, it was found that both the USA and Canada recognize the important role of the Arctic Science Diplomacy in the successful implementation of their Arctic strategy and consider this kind of “non-traditional” public diplomacy to be a rather significant resource of their policy in the Far North. The Canadian ASD has to a greater extent an internal rather than an external orientation, while the U.S. ASD basically serves as an instrument of promotion of American national interests in the region. However, the United States pay less attention to the Arctic Science Diplomacy than Canada. The American ASD infrastructure (including the research centers and polar stations network as well as the research vessel fleet) is less developed than the Canadian one. In addition, in the U.S. strategic documents on the Arctic, unlike Canadian strategies, the coercive component is most clearly traced, which makes the United States a less attractive international partner and imposes certain restrictions on the participation of American ASD actors in Arctic cooperation. Moreover, the United States is very suspicious of the ASD of those regional “players” whom they have listed as unfriendly states (including Russia and China), which also serves as an obstacle to the development of Washington’s scientific cooperation with international partners in the Far North.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".