MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036199516

Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon Transboundary Relations: Battles and Bridges

2010· article· en· W7036199516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionContext (archaeology)ArbitrationMaritime boundaryPopulationMarine conservationConflict resolution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, perched off the end of the Burin Peninsula, southeast of the Cabot Strait and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (see Figure 1), have, through a unique combination of geography, history and resources, presented Canada with one of the more challenging examples of transboundary relations in the marine context off its coasts. The islands, with a total area of 242 km and a population of approximately 7,000, have been the focus both of longstanding conflicts over sovereignty, jurisdiction and resources, and repeated efforts at conflict resolution, including the 1992 arbitration of the maritime boundary. In the modern era, the parties have gone beyond simple resolution of conflicts and have at least attempted to engage in active transboundary cooperation. This chapter considers the current status and future prospects of efforts at bilateral cooperative management of the resources and uses of the marine areas in the area of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the neighboring regions of Canada, with a particular focus on fisheries issues. Any understanding of the present and future management of marine resources in this area, however, first requires a brief review of the history of conflicts which has set the context, both from a jurisdictional and policy standpoint, for the situation facing both countries today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207