Bringing Child Buddhist Monks into the Alternative Care Conversation: Reflections on an Under-considered Group of Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tens of thousands of children in India, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and other Asian countries are living as child Buddhist monks. Many are in temples and monasteries far from home and do not see their parents for months, even years. Some are as young as 6 years of age. The aim of this article is to engage scholars, practitioners, child rights advocates, and others in a conversation around the rights and vulnerabilities of child Buddhist monks and children susceptible to being entrusted to monasteries to live as child monks. This group of children receives relatively little attention in alternative care conversations despite many parallels and overlaps with children in orphanages and care homes. This article identifies risks and vulnerabilities that child monks can face, including sexual abuse. It reflects on how aspects of entrusting young children to live as child monks do not necessarily fit with principles articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( UNGA, 1989 ) and the United Nations Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children ( UNGA, 2009 ).
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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".