MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382750964 · doi:10.1080/2154896x.2023.2205243

First port of call: a horizon scanning workshop for sustainable Arctic marine infrastructure

2023· article· en· W4382750964 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Gormley, Emily Hague, Clare Andvik, Valentina DaCosta, Abigail Davies, Daniela Diz, Karen Alexander, Lauren McWhinnie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Polar Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeScottish Funding CouncilMarine Alliance for Science and Technology for ScotlandScottish Government
KeywordsArcticPort (circuit theory)Environmental planningSustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementCircumpolar starIndigenousGeographyBusinessOceanographyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To support the predicted growth of shipping activities in the Arctic region in coming decades, port developments and associated shipping infrastructure will be required to be developed in both Arctic and sub-Arctic areas. Such large-scale development in unique and potentially vulnerable areas are likely to have wide-ranging effects and associated impacts. We therefore consider the future challenges, opportunities and knowledge gaps associated with the environmental impacts of developing Arctic and sub-Arctic port infrastructure. Here we present the outputs of an international, virtual workshop held in January 2022 exploring this theme. The workshop brought together Arctic, marine and port researchers, practitioners, non-governmental organisations, and local communities representing a range of geographies and disciplines. Based on pre-workshop consultation, five topics were considered: marine mammals and noise; discharges and pollution; ecosystem impacts and effects; environmental management and assessment; and infrastructure and geography. Dissemination of the workshop found five overriding themes that were common across each topic discussion: i) utilising best practice and governance; ii) community and Indigenous Peoples engagement and participation; iii) common vs. Arctic-specific challenges; iv) impact assessment including consideration of cumulative impacts and effects; and v) climate change. The workshop highlighted the requirement to continue to build and broaden discussion, for further collaborative work and research streams to be developed, to ensure any future Arctic and sub-Arctic port infrastructure, in support of Arctic shipping, is developed sustainably.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Polar JournalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207