Arctic Energy Resources: Security and Environmental Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been considerable interest in the Arctic as a source for resources, as a potential zone for commercial shipping, and as a region that might experience conflict due to its strategic importance. With regards to energy resources, some studies suggest that the region contains upwards of 13 percent of global undiscovered oil, 30 percent of undiscovered gas, and multiples more of gas hydrates. The decreasing amount and duration of Arctic ice cover suggests that extraction of these resources will be increasingly commercially viable. Arctic and non-arctic states wish to benefit from the region's resources and the potential circum-polar navigation possibilities. This has led to concerns about the environmental risks of these operations as well as the fear that competition between states for resources might result in conflict. Unresolved offshore boundaries between the Arctic states exacerbate these fears. Yet, the risk of conflict seems overstated considering the bilateral and multilateral steps undertaken by the Arctic states to resolve contentious issues. This article will examine the potential impact of Arctic energy resources on global security as well as the regional environment and examine the actions of concerned states to promote their interests in the region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".