Traditional taboos in biological conservation: the case of <i>Colobus vellerosus</i> at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Central Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Englilish The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary in central Ghana has been called a classic example of successful ‘‘traditional’’ conservation. Local hunting taboos on two species of primates (the ursine black and white colobus and the Campbell's monkey) are thought to date back to the 1830s when a local oracle instructed the villagers to ‘‘care for the monkeys’’. However, the same level of protection is not given to the surrounding forest or other animals in the forest. In light of this situation, we examine the extent to which the traditional taboos on the monkeys complement the biological/ environmental conservation agenda. We come to the conclusion that the monkeys embody the history and foundation myths of the villages and serve as a totemic mechanism to preserve the villagers' social world. French Le "Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary'' au centre du Ghana est considéré comme un exemple classique de conservation "traditionnelle'' réussie. Les tabous locaux sur la chasse de deux espèces de primates (le colobus oursin noir et blanc et le singe de Campbell) datent, pense-t-on, des années 1830, lorsqu'un oracle local avait fait savoir aux villageois qu'ils devaient "prendre soin des singes''. Cependant, la protection accordée aux singes ne l'est pas à la forêt environnante ou aux autres espèces animales de la forêt. C'est pourquoi l'article cherche à établir dans quelle mesure les tabous traditionnels à l'égard des singes convergent avec l'agenda de conservation biologique/environnementale. L'article en arrive à la conclusion que les singes incarnent l'histoire et les mythes fondateurs de ces villages et servent de mécanismes totémiques pour préserver l'espace social des villageois.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".