Bibliographic record
Abstract
I t is rare that a territory seen by so few can be emotionally, spiritually, and personally so compellingly important to so many.Yet that is a modest and understated description of the relationship between Canadians and their Arctic region and territories.It is a passionate, possessive, patriotic, and nationalistic relationship second only to our embrace of hockey.It is not yet jingoistic, which is a good thing.But it is also prone, as is often the case with visions seen from a great distance, to substantive and dangerous distortion.To suggest that the relationship is simply geo-strategic, or narrowly territorial, or militaristic, or simply about the oil and gas, is to oversimplify.Because the relationship between Canadians and the Arctic is about all of the above and a highly romantic quality, understanding the dynamics of the romance, its sustainability and attendant risks, is not only constructive but actually vital to the kind of public, defence, and foreign policies essential to maintaining the relationship at its optimum clarity and balance.The political, environmental, and international law prospectus for the Arctic is complex, as are the instruments available for Canada and Canadians to secure our interests.Canada and the Changing Arctic is essentially a careful unpacking of the challenges that are most germane to Canada's Arctic purposes and of the instruments available to deal with them.It is very reflective of Canada's history and the postwar growth and aspirations, which strongly shaped who we are today through events and clarion calls in the 1950s and 1960s, that Mike Pearson's universal health insurance is totemic for many and that John Diefenbaker's "northern vision" of "roads to resources" is as totemic for others.And in fact, in a way that confounds sterile assumptions dividing xi
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.689 | 0.650 |
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".