Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of the Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The steadily shrinking Arctic ice cap has triggered a feverish interest among the five nations whose coastlines border the region concerning their respective rights to the ocean and the seabed below. The possibility of huge reserves of natural gas and oil, and the potential for newly navigable channels have led to competing claims by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway over large sections of the Arctic. The United States, however, is in danger of losing out due to the obstructionist efforts of a handful of isolationist Senators who consigned a crucial treaty providing a mechanism to negotiate these claims to the deep freeze of the United States Senate for nearly twelve years. While the other Arctic nations have long since ratified the treaty and are proceeding to stake out the future of the region, the United States remains seated on the sidelines.\nDespite the unanimous support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the backing of the current administration, Senate leaders, under pressure from a small cadre of anti-internationalist Senators, have declined to schedule a floor vote on the Law of the Sea. It is time for a new approach that will free this critical law from its icy prison. The president should withdraw the treaty from the Senate and work with both Houses of Congress to foster a Congressional- Executive agreement to ensure that America is not left out in the cold.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".