Spiritual commons: sacred sites as core of community-conserved areas in Kyrgyzstan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyzstan, from the commons perspective. There are some 130 sacred sites in the region, and these fit into the subcategory of cultural/spiritual commons within the broader category of new commons. They can be classified according to their biophysical characteristics, and the reasons why people visit them. Communities have developed rules to protect sacred sites, including the traditional institution of sacred site guardians, people who voluntarily take responsibility to look after a site. Sacred sites as commons have many similarities to conventional commons. But there are also some differences: the more people visit a particular site, the stronger is the ‘power’ of that site and more conservation effort is directed to it. This characteristic distinguishes sacred sites from commons characterized by subtractability. As community-conserved areas, sacred sites have the potential to contribute to biocultural conservation networks. They are an important means of expression and transmission of culture, necessitating recognition and support for the rights of their traditional caretakers and local communities.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it