The Central Arctic Ocean and the BBNJ Agreement: potential and limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The signature of an international agreement to manage biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions (BBNJ Agreement) raised questions about its applicability in the Arctic region in general and the Central Arctic Ocean in particular. Legitimate concerns were expressed by Arctic stakeholders as far the applicability of this agreement is concerned, in light of the agreement signed to prohibit commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. This article analyses the potential to apply the BBNJ Agreement given parallel legal mechanisms already in place and study the potential limitations the BBNJ Agreement will face in the region. We conclude that several hurdles exist for a full implementation of the BBNJ Agreement in the Arctic region: the treaty also possess the possibility of durably changing circumpolar relations between Arctic states. Issuesover overlapping responsibilities with other decisional bodies will contribute to tensions among Arctic states. Likewise, the protection of biodiversity will be influenced by decisions over related matters, including the possible development of the continental shelf and thepotential expansion of deep-sea mining into the Arctic region.
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 | 0.064 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".