WHO OWNS THE NORTH POLE? Analysis of the territorial claims made by the Arctic states over the Continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a growing interest towards The North Pole and the Arctic Ocean Surrounding it in relation to the effects of the Climate Change. This region attracted the attention of the world media when the Federation of Russia sent down two submersibles in 2007 and planted a Russian flag in the Arctic Ocean floor, directly beneath the geographical North Pole. Soon, such headlines as “Who owns the North Pole?” emerged.\n\nThis thesis seeks the answer to the question: Who owns the North Pole? However, contrary to the head-lines of the world media this thesis seeks the answer to this question through State sovereignty. After the Russian expedition in 2007, four of the other Arctic coastal States followed with their territorial claims towards the Arctic Ocean seabed. Currently, Russia has an overlapping claim over the North Pole with the Kingdom of Denmark. Norway and Canada have also submitted their extended continental shelf –claims to the Commission of the Limits of the Continental Shelf. All of these claims are based on the Article 76 of the United Nations Convention of Law of the Sea 1982.\n\nThis thesis analyses the prevalent legal framework regulating these claims, the Arctic Ocean governance, and finally, the extent of State sovereignty in the Arctic Ocean.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".