Sustaining the Arctic Nation State: The Case of Norway, Iceland, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of ensuring Arctic sustainability seems universally agreed upon – even if the aim remains both undefined and contested in terms of sustainability of what, where, how, and by whom. The eight Arctic states – the full members of the Arctic Council with territory north of the Arctic Circle – not only hold particular rights here, but also particular responsibilities; among these is arguably a key role in ensuring Arctic sustainability. The title of ‘Arctic state’ is to be actively performed, and in the process becomes tied to questions of ‘who we are’ as a nation state. This chapter explores how discourses of sustainability become tied to those of national identity in the Arctic states, and in the process, the former comes to reproduce and reify the latter. Focusing on three of the eight Arctic states – Norway, Iceland, and Canada – the chapter draws on interviews with state personnel about their sense of an ‘Arctic identity’. Through their statements of ‘sustainable’ practices demonstrative of an identity – a seemingly inherent characteristic of the national community – they also indirectly ‘sustain’ the image and idea of the nation state itself.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".