Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arktis' betydning for Danmarks indflydelse i USA I Denne rapport er en del af Center for Militære Studiers forskningsbaserede myndighedsbetjening for Forsvarsministeriet og de politiske partier bag forsvarsforliget.Formålet med rapporten er at analysere hvilke påvirkningsmuligheder Arktis og Grønland giver Danmark i forhold til USA, samt at komme med anbefalinger om hvordan dansk Arktisdiplomati i Washington D.C. kan styrkes.Rapporten er baseret på interviews med 35 politikere, embedsmænd og eksperter fra Danmark, Grønland og USA, samt to andre arktiske nationer.Center for Militære Studier er et forskningscenter på Institut for Statskundskab på Københavns Universitet.På centret forskes der i sikkerheds-og forsvarspolitik samt militær strategi.Forskningen danner grundlag for forskningsbaseret myndighedsbetjening af Forsvarsministeriet og de politiske partier bag forsvarsforliget.Denne rapport er et analysearbejde baseret på forskningsmæssig metode.Rapportens konklusioner er ikke et udtryk for holdninger hos den danske regering, det danske forsvar eller andre myndigheder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.328 | 0.178 |
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".