Global uppvärmning till resurskonflikt? Arktis djuphavsgruvbrytning och institutionernas konfliktförebyggande förhållningssätt i en bubblande intressekonflikt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the self-published materials of three different Arctic institutions (the Arctic Council, the Law of the Sea Convention, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council) related to deep-sea mining in order to get an understanding of how these institutions approach conflict prevention within the context of the interest conflict that is present in the Arctic. By applying environmental diplomacy theory to the materials and adopting a fluid perspective derived from liquid institutionalization theory, the study finds that Arctic institutions generally have a positive stance toward conflict prevention in a hypothetical context. However, there is a noted variation in the prioritization and motivations for incorporating conflict prevention values into practice, as a consequence of the fluid institutional foundation in the Arctic. Through the work's choice of limitations, perspectives and scientific theories, the work thus applies a modern diplomatic approach to a non-traditional conflict, which places the work in the peace and conflict science research field despite the conflict's lack of direct violence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".