MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401454712 · doi:10.18357/bigr52202421690

Franco–Italian Mont Blanc Dispute and Climate Change: Policy Perspectives after the Quirinal Treaty

2024· article· en· W4401454712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paola Malaspina

Bibliographic record

VenueBorders in Globalization Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyContext (archaeology)Political scienceWork (physics)GeographyGlacierClimate changeRegional sciencePhysical geographyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This policy report focuses on the border dispute between France and Italy over Mont Blanc in the context of climate change, examining the causes of the disagreement between the two countries and the effects of glacier melting on borders among Alpine countries. Adopting the approach of territorial singularities and mobile borders, the work analyzes the impact of initiatives such as the ETRS89 framework, which ensures GPS-validated mapping technologies in Europe, allowing measurements of border shifts. Insight is given to practices and agreements adopted by Italy, Switzerland, and Austria, such as two bilateral treaties incorporating mobile borders. Starting with a review of the current perspectives of cross-border cooperation between France and Italy after the recent Quirinal Treaty, the report suggests some steps that could be taken to strengthen synergies and mitigate the effects of the dispute: remapping the area, monitoring border shifts, and applying a shared regulation of access and off-limits areas across the entire Mont Blanc.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorders in Globalization ReviewSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207