Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examines the foreign policy of the two major Arctic states, Russia and Canada. The main goal is to define what factors affect the formation of foreign policies of both countries and the way how applying Arctic foreign policies of Russia and Canada affects their relations in the region. First part of the study defines the Arctic region from geographical and legal terms, and briefly describes its history and also deals with Arctic actors (except Russia and Canada) and defines their objectives in the Arctic and finally the author also focuses on the Arctic Council as the most important institution for dealing with Arctic issues. The main part of the study deals with analysis of the Canadian and Russian Arctic strategy and examines the impact of internal and external factors on the formation of Arctic foreign policies of these countries. The category of external factors includes anarchy and power from the perspective of realism, interdependence from the perspective of liberalism and international norms and legitimacy from the perspective of constructivism; internal factors includes the public, societal groups, government organization and leaders. Author analyzes the formation of Russian and Canadian foreign policy using these factors and concludes, that dominant external factor in case of the...
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".