MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405215742 · doi:10.1080/00908320.2024.2413605

Resolution at the Intersection of Sovereignty and Security in the Northwest Passage Dispute: An Essay in Honor of Ted L. McDorman

2024· article· en· W4405215742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth B. Elliot-Meisel

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Development & International Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorIntersection (aeronautics)SovereigntyPolitical scienceResolution (logic)LawSociologyLaw and economicsComputer scienceGeographyCartographyPoliticsArtificial intelligenceInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continental security requires resolution of the United States-Canada Northwest Passage disagreement. This article builds upon Ted McDorman’s emphasis on the different positions of the two nations and asserts that there is a pressing need for a solution regarding the Passage that is rooted in bilateral cooperation. In this era of accelerated climate change and increased access to the waters of North America’s High Arctic, as well as the uncertain future of an increasingly alliance-skeptical United States in some influential circles and the rapidly moving international tensions, uncertainty surrounds the issue. A resolution at the intersection of sovereignty and security in the Northwest Passage dispute rejects an absolutist approach to sovereignty or precedent, and instead recognizes Canadian sovereignty to the Passage, allowing it to close off the Passage to any hostile forces, while allowing the Americans access to the Passage to protect the continent. It is a cooperative United States–Canada arrangement that will secure the continent for both countries.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.031
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0140.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueOcean Development & International LawSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207