Climate, environment and the fortunes of Buddhism during the Tibetan Empire 618-842 CE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The official adoption of Buddhism by the Tibetan state in the mid-8th Century (761-762 CE) was relatively late compared to its permeation from northern India to elsewhere in south and east Asia, due to the country’s geographical isolation. Whilst reasons for its adoption remain uncertain, it is thought that the religion provided a strong unifying influence permitting both the consolidation and subsequent expansion of the Tibetan Empire. Early historical records suggest that the religion was prohibited in 739-741 CE and 841-842 CE, the latter coinciding with the fall of the Tibetan Empire. This research presents an examination of Tibetan and Chinese historical records and fine-resolution palaeoclimatic reconstructions to demonstrate that the ‘oscillating fate’ of Buddhism during the Tibetan Empire (618-842 CE), was inextricably linked to regional climate change and to a series of natural disasters. Extreme meteorological events have significant present-day impacts on the geographically vulnerable Tibetan Plateau, and we propose that long-term climatic deterioration between mid-770s to the late 830s CE was likely to have been the most significant factor underpinning environmental deterioration and the eventual collapse of the rural economy, which undermined the Buddhist state in the 9th century CE and lead to the prohibition of the religion in both Tibet, and by the neighbouring Tang Dynasty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".