Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and thus had to submit scientific and technical data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) no later than 2013 to extend its continental shelf beyond 200 miles from the coast. Initially the Canadian submission was to include data for both the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. However the requirement in 2013 by Canadian Prime Minister S. Harper to include the seabed at the North Pole in the submission forced the Canadian government to split the submission into two parts: in 2013 data on the outer limit of Canada's continental shelf in the Atlantic Ocean were submitted to the CLCS, and in 2019 - on the Arctic. In the 2019 submission Canada claimed a seabed area of 1.2 million square kilometers, including the North Pole. In December 2022 Canada submitted an addendum to its 2019 proposal to the CLCS, in which it further increased its claims to the continental shelf in the Arctic, bringing the boundaries of its shelf to the Russian exclusive economic zone. The increase in the area of disputed areas of the continental shelf between Russia, Canada and Denmark means that the decisive role in establishing the boundaries of the continental shelf of these countries in the Arctic will be played by the corresponding negotiations between these countries. The February 2023 approval by the CLCS of Russian claims to the Lomonosov Ridge and the Alpha-Mendeleev Rise is important for Canada as well, as it also legitimizes Canada's right to claim the continental shelf in the Arctic beyond 350 miles from its coast. The extreme aggravation of relations between Russia and the West since 2022 complicates the division of the continental shelf in the Arctic between the countries of this region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".