Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the intersections of legal and political dispute resolution methods in Arctic territorial disputes involving Russia and several Western governments, including Canada and the United States. There are two current disputes. The first dispute concentrates on the Lomonosov Ridge, a geological feature that runs near the North Pole and has been used by three states to claim the North Pole as part of their continental shelf. The second dispute deals with the legal status of the Northern Sea Route. Our paper evaluates the tradeoffs between the legal and political constraints in these disputes between Russia and the West, and considers the possible methods of dispute settlement. In the paper, we suggest that the resolution of Arctic conflicts is likely to include a set of legal-political equilibria, such as international adjudication, voluntary mediation, and intergovernmental regulation. The Lomonosov Ridge dispute is likely to be resolved by voluntary mediation through a voluntary conciliation procedure coupled with the political support of Russia, Denmark, and Canada. However, the Northern Sea Route dispute is likely to be addressed by intergovernmental regulation because Russia’s argument on coastal jurisdiction is opposed by that of the United States on international waters and the right to free navigation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".