MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132384148

Policy and governance simulation for Arctic marine routes

2025· article· en· W7132384148 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mitchell E. Stroud, Tien Anh Tran, Manolo Arcos Mendez, Tom Browne, Brian Veitch

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ArcticCorporate governanceThe arcticPolar codeService (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces PoGo (Policy and Governance), a simulation framework designed to assess the operational impacts of maritime policies on shipping, particularly for navigation in sea ice. By integrating ship performance models, metocean conditions, local community factors, regulations like the Polar Code and Carbon Intensity Indicator, and employing a route optimization algorithm, PoGo enables the evaluation of policy decisions and their effects on rights-holders and ship operators. The main elements of PoGo are described and the framework of the code is outlined. A case study on a cargo transportation service to Iqaluit is used to exemplify some the tool’s features, focusing on vessel ice class, transportation season, fuel and crewing costs, carbon emissions, and voyage time. This application highlights how PoGo can be used as a strategic tool, identifying consequences of policy changes, navigation restrictions, and future regulation revisions. Effectively, the simulation framework can be used to assess the sensitivity of policy decisions in the context of Arctic shipping, and balance economic and other considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→