Tensions on Erraid: How the Need for "Human Sustainability" Challenges an Intentional Spiritual Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
K: Have you, uh, you were just saying that you were experiencing something, do you want to describe that a bit more when you're in C: In the zone K: Yeah, if you can, sometimes these things C: Um, yeah, well I had a little bit today on the walk, we went down to Belfour Bay [a beautiful spot on Erraid], and Angeline's boots had holes in them, so we just sat down and didn't trudge through the water, and I just, you know it had a little bit of exercise outdoors, I sat down on this rock, and I could justsighI relaxed, you know. And I could smell the smells, and feel the breeze, and hear the waves, and it was all so beautiful, it took me out of myself. Which was lovely. Um, what's the question? (laughter) K [very curious now]: When you're in the zone, what does it feel like? C: It feels serene, it feels relaxed, it feels like the chatter in my head is somewhere else, and that I am in touch withWhen I am in touch with something that's greater than myself, I feel calm and clear, centered, confident, and there's just no bullshit. So for your interview, there's no interference from other things. [Laughter from both of us] This was not the first time (nor the last time) I heard about experiences like these on Erraid. I got the sense that there was this great optimism and potential that seemed to emanate from both short-term and long-term guests. Our interview continued and I asked Charlotte about the potential of intentional communities: were they a decent alternative to the nuclear family? She responded, C: I don't think we're the only ones who need an alternative to the nuclear family.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".