Navigating the Arctic : the canadian NORDREG, the international polar code and regional cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human activity is increasing in the Arctic due to several factors, not least of which is global warming, which particularly affects the region. It is against this backdrop that the development of the legal framework for the protection of the marine Arctic is unfolding. Even though it is in its infancy, several problems may already be noted and deserve closer attention. The latest example is the Canadian decision to make NORDREG mandatory. Consequently, vessels going through the Canadian Arctic are required to report to the Canadian authorities and may be denied access if they do not conform to Canadian standards. Several States recently objected to this decision. The main objective of the present paper is to examine the consistency of the compulsory NORDREG regulation with international law not without placing it in its factual and larger legal context. Its secondary objective is then to put such unilateral actions into perspective by highlighting the unavoidability of international standard setting with respect to navigation, referring to the example of the Polar Code, and by exploring the advantages of regional cooperation for the safe development of human activities in the Arctic.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".