Arctic science diplomacy of the Nordic Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic science diplomacy (ASD) is one of the innovative tools for promoting a positive image of the state and building strong international partnerships in the region. This study aims to identify common and distinctive features of Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish ASDs. The article analyses the motivation and main priorities of the Nordic ASD both at the national and regional levels. The state of the ASD infrastructure in each of the Nordic countries is also described. The Nordic states seek to coordinate their Arctic research and create joint structures for these purposes. Since Denmark, Finland and Sweden are the EU members, The Nordic countries are actively using the financial, organizational and intellectual resources of the EU to increase the effectiveness of their ASD. A common feature for all five Nordic countries is also the close attention they pay to ASD as part of their polar strategies. The Nordic countries focus on the ASD since they have much less economic, geopolitical and military resources than such "Arctic giants" than the United States, Canada and Russia. The article also indicates that with the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, scientific cooperation between the Nordic countries and Russia has been significantly reduced on the initiative of these states. This has further complicated the situation in the Arctic 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".