Ratio of national and international interests of the states in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the experience of the Arctic states in securing their territorial rights to the Arctic. Various legal documents are being explored in which the polar states indicated the boundaries of their Arctic sector, studying the legal experience of the Russian Federation, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the USA on protecting their Arctic possessions, analyzing the main directions of international cooperation in the Arctic region, the role of the concept of the polar sectors in the delimitation of the Arctic spaces by polar states. Also, the article explores the mutual influence of legal actions and legal experience of the polar states on the development of each other's Arctic legislation. For example, the activity of the Canadian government in the Arctic region prompted the Soviet government to take more resolute actions to strengthen its positions in the Arctic in the first quarter of the 20th century.Based on the analysis of various legal documents and legal experience of the Arctic states on securing their territorial rights in the Arctic, recommendations are given on improving the international legal regime of the Arctic and preventing possible geopolitical conflicts in the Arctic region, taking into account the interests of the international community and the polar powers. On the one hand, each Arctic state has its own national territorial interests in the Arctic region. On the other hand, with the adoption and dissemination of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arctic subjects have significantly increased the number of subjects of international law that have territorial and economic interests in the region. In view of these circumstances, it seems to the Arctic states that it is necessary to unite their efforts to protect their territorial and environmental interests in the Arctic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".