MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geopolitics and Geostrategy of the GIUK Gap: Rising Stakes in a Strategic Sea Corridor.

2024· article· en· W4400333746 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matěj Matěj

Bibliographic record

VenueObrana a strategie (Defence & Strategy) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i OsloUniverzita Karlova v PrazeArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsGeopoliticsPolitical scienceAl qaedaPolitical economyInternational tradeLawTerrorismBusinessSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the geopolitical and geostrategic significance of the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) Gap, a region of the North Atlantic Ocean between those respective islands, part of the broader Arctic realm known as the High North. It begins with a short overview of the historical development of the GIUK Gap's geopolitical and geostrategic significance, followed by an analysis of the region's current geopolitical and geostrategic dynamics. For the analysis, Walt’s balance of threat was employed as a neorealistic theoretical framework, with four specific variables chosen. This theory assumes that states try to balance potential threats. The study highlights the growing importance of the GIUK Gap for both NATO and the Russian Federation, whose interests have increasingly clashed in recent years. The paper argues that the deteriorating relations between NATO and Russia following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 have causally contributed to the growing importance of the GIUK Gap.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObrana a strategie (Defence & Strategy)Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207