MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411704903 · doi:10.1163/22116001-03901007

The 2022 Canada-Denmark/Greenland Maritime Boundary Agreement: A Model for Rules-Based International Order and a Stepping Stone to Greater Cooperation

2025· article· en· W4411704903 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Knudsen, Michelle Campbell, Kenneth Høegh

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Yearbook Online · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaritime boundaryOrder (exchange)Boundary (topology)GeologyGeographyPolitical scienceBusinessMathematicsLawInternational law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract for Scopus Indexing: Settlement of territorial and maritime boundary disputes provide legal certainty and may pave the way for sustainable development and cooperation. This is the case globally and not least in the Arctic, a region opening up due to climate change. For 50 years Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark have not come to agreement over the sovereignty of the island of Tartupaluk (Hans Island) and the maritime delimitation in the Lincoln Sea. The overlapping continental shelf beyond 200 M in the Labrador Sea became apparent approximately a decade ago. The Parties settled these outstanding boundary issues when a new boundary agreement was signed on 14 June 2022. The agreement supports efforts to maintain the Arctic region as a low-tension area of cooperation and has come about after Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark, following a common political desire, intensified efforts in recent years to reach a unified negotiated solution.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean Yearbook OnlineSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207