The Gulf of Maine Case and the Future of Ocean Boundary Delimitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 12, 1984, a Chamber of the International Court of Justice handed down its decision in the Case Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U.S.). By a vote of four to one, the Chamber described in geodetic lines the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and exclusive fishery zones of Canada and the United States in that area. The Chamber's decision ended more than a decade of conflict between the two countries concerning jurisdiction over continental shelf and fishery resources in the Georges Bank area. The boundary dispute resolved by the Chamber in the Gulf of Maine Case involved overlapping claims to continental shelf and superjacent waters in the Gulf of Maine region, extending seaward from the coast to a distance of approximately 200 miles. The disputed area covered about forty-two percent of Georges Bank. The location of the boundary has considerable significance for both the United States and Canada because of the known fish yields and the potential oil and gas reserves of the area. Georges Bank is one of the richest fishing grounds in the world, producing about twice as much as the North Sea, four times as much as the Grand Banks, and five times as much as the northeast Arctic. The disputed sector is one of Georges Bank's most productive areas. The amount of oil and gas reserves under Georges Bank, in general, and the disputed sector, in particular, will not be known until considerable exploratory drilling and actual development take place. Experienced geologists have made estimates of potential oil and gas reserves, but their accuracy is uncertain, at best. Existing estimates do indicate, however, that oil and gas deposits may be substantial.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".