Breaking Point: A legal analysis of Canadian practice in relation to ice breaking in the Northwest Passage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis consists of four parts:\n\tPart 1, comprised of Chapters I and II, consists of this introduction and some background information. It aims to provide the reader with the context necessary to obtain a workable understanding of the Canadian marine Arctic, the NWP, the shipping that occurs therein and some basic information on ice breaking. However, spatial considerations only allow for minimal coverage. Possible terminology clarification and definitions are also provided. \n\tPart 2, comprised of Chapter III, focuses on the first research question. Namely, it explores aspects of the international legal framework for Arctic shipping relevant in respect of ice breaking in the NWP. Again, spatial considerations do not permit an in-depth examination, so the author has selectively presented only those aspects deemed essential for the purposes of this thesis.\n\tPart 3, comprised of Chapters IV and V, focuses on the second and third research questions. First, Chapter IV provides a presentation of the laws, regulations and practices in relation to ice breaking in the NWP. From this presentation, the author establishes the instances in which a vessel navigating in the NWP is legally required to obtain icebreaker assistance. Second, Chapter V contains an analysis of the consistency of Canadian practice in relation to ice breaking in the NWP (presented in Chapter IV) with international law in light of the aspects of the international framework for Arctic shipping (presented in Chapter III).\n\tPart 4, comprised of Chapter VI, attempts to conclude on the adequacy of the Canadian practice in relation to ice breaking in light of the challenges for the NWP related to climate change, marine environmental security, and creeping jurisdiction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".