Norway "must really drop their absurd claims such as that to the Otto Sverdrup Islands." Bi-polar international diplomacy: The Sverdrup Islands question, 1902-1930
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the international context of Norway’s acknowledgement of Canadian title to the Sverdrup Islands in 1930. By drawing on a hitherto unpublished combination of British and Norwegian primary sources plus a wide range of secondary material this thesis offers new perspectives on the historical background of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic Archipelago. The Sverdrup agreement was deeply embedded in the wider context of British expansion in Antarctica and Norwegian actions in both the Arctic and Antarctica. Arctic and Antarctic policies were intrinsically connected as political moves in either of the continents could, and did, develop legal precedents in the wider bi-polar context. The agreement reached over the Sverdrup Islands was an intricate compromise that involved no transaction or sale of territory. Rather, the settlement represented a confirmation of existing claims and policies in the bi-polar context that served to further the expansionist objectives of Norway, Canada and Britain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".