Challenges of the Changing Arctic: Continental Shelf, Navigation, and Fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is yet another book in a series produced by the Center for Oceans Law and Policy (COLP) at the University of Virginia Law School and once again draws on papers given at a conference, this time the 38th Annual Conference held in Bergen, Norway, 25–27 June 2014. The volume focuses on three Arctic Ocean governance themes and provides “must read” chapters on the topics of continental shelf, navigation, and fisheries. The first two parts of the book are devoted to Arctic continental shelf issues. Part I is committed to reviewing law and policy approaches and questions surrounding extended continental shelf determinations by the five Arctic Ocean coastal States. Michael Byers in Chapter 4 reviews the law and politics facing Canada, Denmark, and Russia in their assertion of rights over the Lomonosov Ridge. He highlights the possible future need to negotiate boundaries where there are overlapping claims and opines that the principle of equidistance would likely be used to delimit the seabed rights between Canada and Denmark, which would situate the North Pole on the Danish side. In Chapter 5, Alex Oude Elferink reviews the present state of national extended shelf claims in the Arctic and questions whether the usual equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology to delimit the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles should be applied to areas beyond. He suggests an alternative approach which is left somewhat impressionistic but starts with giving priority attention to overlapping natural prolongations and the relevant coasts of the contending parties.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".