Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic has long been seen as an exceptional area in international relations, largely due to the marked collaboration of actors within the Arctic Council, a forum established in 1996 which brings together eight states (Members) as well as six indigenous groups (Permanent Participants), and a range of observer states. However, on February 24, 2022, this sense of exceptionalism and cooperation was greatly questioned when the Russian invasion of Ukraine destabilized the Arctic Council. On March 3rd, a joint statement from Canada, Finland, Iceland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United States announced that they had paused their participation in the Arctic Council, in light of Russia’s violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This pause was implemented without consulting the Permanent Participants. This raises significant questions, especially given that the Arctic Council's Declaration explicitly emphasizes “active participation” and “full consultation” with Indigenous peoples in its second article. How could such a decision be made in disregard of these commitments? This thesis asks more specifically: what mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion operate within the Arctic Council? Are Indigenous Permanent Participants truly engaged, as the council's foundational texts promise?My central argument is that the exclusion of Indigenous Permanent Participants from the decision to pause the Arctic Council activities in 2022 reflects not a rupture, but a continuation of a deeper structural hierarchy within global Arctic governance. This paper adopts a qualitative approach grounded in Viola’s closure thesis (2020), identifying four types of institutional closure within the Arctic Council. It examines how dynamics of exclusion and inclusion shape the role of Permanent Participants in Arctic governance
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".