MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411051666 · doi:10.56902/etdcrp.2025.20

Tensions in the Arctic: Avoiding Escalation

2025· dissertation· en· W4411051666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emma Loeber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticDe-escalationEnvironmental scienceOceanographyPolitical scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic has long been considered a place of peace and scientific cooperation largely unaffected by international tensions. In the past decade, however, climate change has made the Northern Sea Route (NSR) increasingly navigable, and its status as an important trade route in a time of recurring great power rivalry has increased tensions in the Arctic. Coupled with the Arctic’s strategic location for both Russia and the United States, this has led to the militarization of the region and fears of a security dilemma that could lead to escalation and conflict. This paper will focus on the eight Arctic states as well as China to analyze how their discourse, actions, and published Arctic Strategies present their priorities in the region and how those priorities can be addressed in recommendations for keeping the Arctic peaceful. It ultimately recommends that the Arctic Council begin considering issues of military security; that NATO defers to the Arctic Council on Arctic matters; that Russia governs the Northeast Passage as an official international strait with guidance from the Arctic Council; and that Canada governs the Northwest passage as an international strait.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→