Revisiting debates over China’s proposed Antarctic specially managed area at Dome A: a test of consistency for the Antarctic Treaty System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Facing the challenges arising from climate change and biodiversity loss, the tool of protected areas has been gaining increasing attention. This phenomenon is similarly observed in the Antarctic. At this critical juncture, revisiting the practice of the Antarctic Treaty System in relation to the Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA), particularly China’s proposal to designate an ASMA at Dome A in 2013, will be valuable. This paper compares several key features of existing ASMAs, including their management plans, and reviews the debates on China’s proposal since 2013. Three dilemmas of the Antarctic Treaty System are observed, and thorough analyses are conducted. This paper argues that China’s proposal fully complies with the rules of the Environmental Protocol, and safeguarding and promoting consistency in the application and interpretation of the rules of the Antarctic Treaty and its Environmental Protocol should be the top priority for the Antarctic Treaty System.
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 | 0.041 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| 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".