MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405255426 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2024.2419840

Wicked problems in Canada's Arctic during Cold War 2.0

2024· article· en· W4405255426 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Cunningham, James S. Kempling, Lynn Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian NavyCanadian Armed ForcesUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCold warChinaPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Corporate governanceWicked problemPolitical economyEnvironmental ethicsLawDevelopment economicsSociologyManagementBusinessEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada faces major challenges in its governance of the North given the impact of climate change and some of the challenges currently posed by Russia and China that are a departure from the rules-based order that existed for a 36-year period following the Cold War. When combined with the general world-wide challenges that both Russia and China are making in relationship to international law, including the prohibition against invading other nations, we are led to conclude that we are well into what we may rightly call Cold War 2.0. The complexities we are experiencing now in the North suggest that many of the new problems might be characterized as wicked problems because they are difficult to solve, there are no clear solutions, and different stakeholders and experts have different ideas of how to proceed. Sometimes, the resolution to the problem creates other problems. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate experts’ views of wicked problems we are more likely to experience and the challenges this presents. The paper offers suggestions for how decision-makers might seek to respond to wicked problems in the North in a new Cold War 2.0 era.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207