Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] In an age of rising powers, there remain few purely regional affairs. With ascendant powers eagerto assert their growing influence overseas, many national issues have become international ones. It seems that the is no exception. While the far north was once the domain of a few select nations, a number of developing nations have now gained influence. Namely, China and India have sought to increase their presence at the same time that Russia is shoring up its own influence there. In May 2013, the members of the Council--the United States, Russia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden--voted to install six nations as observer China and India were two of the six states welcomed to the Council (the others were Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Italy). While they do not have the ability to vote on matters before the Council, China and India now have their feet in the door. The vote marked an important step in recognizing their roles in development. Currently, three of the five BRICS (an acronym for the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as emerging powerhouses) have a seat at the affairs table. China and India have joined the Council at a time when their BRICS partner Russia has stirred up aggression in Ukraine, and has also been busy building up its forces. Its actions have raised the specter of military competition in the Arctic, a prospect that the Council was set up to avoid. The concern is whether these three nations will act as responsible partners in regional economic and environmental activities, or if they will opt to enter into competition with other regional powers. There is a clear risk of regional competition and instability. If other states do not act carefully, recent moves by Russia, China, and India may disrupt decades of effective multilateral partnership in the Arctic. The goal for the United States and its allies should be to deter further militarization and resource grabbing, while retaining the BRICS players as effective partners. The states must focus on aligning the interests of Russia, China, and India with their own, in order to preserve the Arctic's diplomatic model. Russia Russia occupies a unique place in discussions over the Arctic. There is no denying that it is a true state, with vast territorial holdings in the far north. However, it has many differences with other traditional Arctic states. The other members of the Council are steadfast allies, linked by various multilateral organizations such as NATO. Russia has been a mercurial, uncertain ally at best. At the same time, it has usually been willing to leave other disputes at the door and commit to peaceful development. However, recent events have changed its strategic calculus. The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has brought Russia's relations with the United States and much of Europe to a low point. Furthermore, now that China and India have become involved in the dialogue, Russia has become increasingly nervous about the potential loss of land and resources. Finally, while the Russian economy's dependence on oil and gas is hardly new, it is a major motivator for Moscow to assert itself in the region: the US Geological Service estimated that the region contains about 10 percent of the Earth's undiscovered oil deposits in addition to up to 30 percent of its untapped natural gas. As a result of these trends, Russia is now seeking to increase its military presence in the Arctic. Russian military officials have announced plans to reposition ground forces along Russia's coast. The military has also started to build new military installations in the region in order to guard its interests along the Northern Sea Route. It has conducted military exercises in the area, and also sought to bolster its nuclear forces there. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".