Comparative and critical analysis of data sources used for ship traffic spatial pattern analysis in Canada and across the global Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• First comparative analysis of NORDREG, S-AIS and ASTD datasets for Arctic shipping. • Fusing S-AIS and ASTD enhances vessel detection across Arctic maritime regions. • S-AIS outperforms ASTD in Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route coverage. • ASTD excels in regions with dense terrestrial AIS, like Norway and Iceland. • Arctic vessel detections show consistent growth from 2011 to 2022. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of three primary datasets commonly employed to evaluate shipping patterns in Arctic waters: 1) Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Zone (NORDREG), 2) satellite-based Automatic Identification System (S-AIS) from a private provider, and 3) the Arctic Ship Traffic Database (ASTD). Covering the years 2011 to 2022, the analysis assesses spatial and temporal metrics for each dataset while employing robust data cleaning techniques to address signal manipulation and detection gaps. Findings reveal that S-AIS and NORDREG excel in detecting vessel traffic in Canadian waters, including the Northwest Passage (NWP), while ASTD demonstrates strong performance in regions with dense terrestrial AIS coverage, such as Norway and Iceland. However, ASTD is less effective along critical shipping routes, including the NWP and the Northern Sea Route (NSR), where S-AIS provides broader coverage. Both datasets indicate an upward trend in AIS-based traffic throughout the Arctic. The results underscore the value of fusing S-AIS and ASTD datasets to provide a more complete and accurate understanding of Arctic shipping patterns. This research offers critical insights for policymakers and researchers selecting ship traffic data for regional and global Arctic analyses, maritime safety, and environmental decision-making.
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 | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".