The International Agreement on the Development and Management of Antarctic Tourism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are mainly 3 international organizations for Antarctic tourism management. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), and the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is an international agreement that must be followed by all Antarctic activities. Antarctic tourism activities should maintain fundamental values and principles of the Antarctic Treaty System. Safeguarding peace, cooperation on the basis of freedom of scientific research and comprehensive environmental protection are three pillars of the ATS. The Environmental Protocol entered into force after being signed by the Consultative Parties in 1998. Based on the Protocol, a prior environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be prepared for tourist activities. Each proposal for an activity must be subjected to a preliminary assessment (PA), an initial environmental evaluation (IEE) or a comprehensive environmental evaluation (CEE), depending on the possible impacts of the proposal. Nowadays, the main supervising subjects of Antarctic tourism are National Competent Authority (NCA) and IAATO; In addition to the industry′s own controls of IAATO, only the consultative parties of ATCM has taken part in decision-making of regulations and guidelines. Other participants in the meeting may contribute to the discussions. At present, the promotion of Antarctic tourism management is mainly reflected in three aspects: the improvement of the domestic legal systems of contracting parties, the establishment of the international communication platform and the development of site-specific guidelines. The number of Chinese Antarctic tourists has increased year by year, but no Antarctic International Tourism Organization of China has become associate of IAATO.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.020 |
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".