Bibliographic record
Abstract
La région circumpolaire regorge de ressources naturelles, soit 22% des ressources mondiales non-découvertes.En plus des enjeux économiques et stratégiques (passages du Nord-Est et du Nord-Ouest), cette région est l'une des plus vulnérables aux changements climatiques.D'ici 2040, la glace devrait disparaître et rendre la navigation possible pendant les 12 mois d'une année.Dans un tel contexte, les États circumpolaires comme le Canada, les États-Unis, la Norvège, la Suède, le Danemark, la Finlande et la Russie, oscillent entre des comportements diverses : confrontation, dissuasion, collaboration et coopération.Les théoriciens des relations internationales utilisent la plupart du temps les théories main stream pour décrire ces comportements.Néanmoins, des rapports de coopération institutionnalisés existent entre les États polaires et la Théorie des Régimes Internationaux nous permet de mettre en évidence un nouveau né dans le corpus théorique des internationalistes : le régime de l'arctique.Ce régime est composé de normes, de principes et de processus décisionnels reconnus et légitimés par les États parties au dit régime.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".