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 OpenAlex
H. Knudsen, Michelle Campbell, Kenneth Høegh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
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