From lethargy to leadership: America's origins and obligations as an arctic nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as the global average. This drastic increase has been the catalyst for a number of vicious cycles that exacerbate climate change, such as the melting of both permafrost and ice sheets. New waterways, opened due to melting ice, have provided access to once impossible to reach resources and brought competing ambitions of both Arctic and non-Arctic nations to the forefront. The prospect of easily accessible resources such as oil, natural gas, and minerals has amplified the issues of territory and ownership in the Arctic with many nations responding with an increase in nationalism and militarization. Outcomes of this geopolitical competition will have consequences that reach far beyond the Arctic. Equally as important are the effects that these rivalries will have on the indigenous groups that live and subsist in the Arctic --many of which have been victims of systematic disenfranchisement and racism. As a result of the purchase of Alaska in 1867, the United States belongs to an exclusive company of nations that own or oversee territory in the Arctic. These eight nations, the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark (via Greenland), despite sharing the designation of being an Arctic nation, all possess distinct ambitions and interests in the far North. Cooperation, however, is imperative to address the myriad challenges that the Arctic faces in the twenty-first century. In order for the United States to become, and remain, a responsible Arctic ally, I argue, we must first reexamine our origins as an Arctic nation and recognize the connection between the purchase of Alaska and the conquest of the American West. Acknowledging the continued existence of exploitation and colonialism in Alaska is a necessary step the United States must take on the path towards responsibility in the Arctic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".