The Beaufort Sea Boundary Dispute: A Consideration of Rights of Inuit in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the United States are involved in a long-standing dispute concerning the maritime boundary of the Beaufort Sea, located north of Canada and the State of Alaska. With rising global temperatures and the resulting interest in the potential newly accessible resources in the Beaufort Sea, there is increased political pressure to resolve the dispute within the next few years. A likely resolution of this dispute is that the two countries “agree to disagree” and enter into various co-management agreements governing the Beaufort Sea region. This article maintains that if an “agreement to disagree” is reached between Canada and the US regarding the Beaufort Sea boundary dispute and the result is various joint management of the region governing the protection and exploitation of its natural resources, then Inuit in Canada and the US have a right to negotiate such agreements as affected parties. This article considers the rights and entitlements of Inuit in Canada and the US to meaningfully participate in international negotiations regarding agreements governing the Beaufort Sea and its resources. This article analyzes the comparative legal rights of Inuit in Canada and US to share in the Beaufort Sea’s resources, protection, and management. The author discusses the relevant land claim agreements and legislative schemes, common law and constitutional rights in judicial precedents, international legal norms, and policy arguments that support Inuit communities’ right to sit at the table with Canada and the US to negotiate international agreements to resolve this dispute. The Arctic, including the Beaufort Sea, is the home of Inuit, and they possess legal rights to participate in shaping Arctic governance policy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".