Geopolitics in the Arctic - the evolution of A5 countries' claims to an extended continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bachelor's thesis examines the territorial claims of the seabed, or extended continental shelf, in the Arctic Ocean and the current geopolitical situation between Russia and the western countries - specifically the United States and Canada - in the Arctic region. The thesis aims to map the development of the extended continental shelf proposals of all the Arctic Five countries - Norway, Russia, Denmark, Canada and the United States (A5) and at the same time to trace the approach of each A5 country to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as the approach of the respective A5 countries to UNCLOS differs. The second part of the thesis focuses on Russia's current geopolitics in the Arctic and the relationship between Russia and the two major western players in Arctic geopolitics, which is examined through a content analysis of official contributions from the governments of Russia, Canada, and the United States. The analysis shows that Arctic geopolitics has changed a great deal over the last three years and the whole situation is more heated than it was, helped by the currently tense atmosphere between East and West. Keywords: extended continental shelf, Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, A5, geopolitics
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".