The Arctic Region as an Object of Geopolitical Contradictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past thirty years, the world community has increased interest in the Arctic, new opportunities are emerging due to global warming, and many states have seen new prospects for their own development and strengthening their influence in the world. But non-Arctic states will have to prove the validity of their interests in order to get the right to participate in decision-making in the region. The results of many scientific studies indicate large oil and gas deposits, as well as reserves of many other types of minerals, respectively, interested countries will need to confirm the legitimacy of their rights to extract resources. With the melting of glaciers, new transport hubs are opening up, such as the NSR and NWP, which Russia and Canada seek to control, and where the United States and other countries insist that the NSR and NWP should have the status of international straits. Tensions are growing around the island of Svalbard, although the Paris Convention on Svalbard was signed in 1920, which implies Norway's sovereignty over the island, other countries have retained the right to conduct economic activities on the island, and Norway is trying to challenge this right in various ways. This paper examines hypothetical areas of cooperation and disagreements between stakeholders in the Arctic. The article describes the structure of relations between actors in the Arctic region, their problems and national interests, as well as cooperation in various fields. So countries that usually oppose each other in many regions can cooperate, sometimes even having contradictions in the Arctic, which ultimately allows us to see how many states can simultaneously converge and disagree on many issues in the Arctic. What makes this region unique in international relations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".