Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Territorial mastery in northernmost Mongolia’s taiga is contested. The main contestants are: 1) taiga-dwelling Duhas (nomadic reindeer-enabled hunter-gatherers and multispecies pastoralists), their livestock, and other, non-human local masters of Duha homeland (emplaced in the Darhad Depression’s mountainous rim); 2) the Mongolian state (centralised far away in the capital, and reaching outward along operational extensions centralised in concentric outposts), and the state’s embedded agents (mostly emplaced in the Darhad Depression’s steppe). For Duhas (who maintain ground superiority in the taiga), competitive performance consists largely of maintaining or resuming traditional territorial engagement, and representing and/or strengthening their situation vis-à-vis the state in their dialogue and/or cohabitation with useful outsiders (e.g. tourists and anthropologists). For the state (and its nature reserve rangers and border guards), performance consists largely of geosocial demarcations, proscriptions and prescriptions, and enforcement thereof. Here Ulaan Taiga Specially Protected Areas Administration (UTSPAA), and the largest of its three nature reserves Tengis-Shishged National Park (TSNP) in particular, are indispensable to Mongolia’s territorialization. In the de jure sprawl and de facto murkiness of UTSPAA zoning throughout the three reserves and their interstices, state potency looms spectrally omnipresent at the remotest reaches of Mongolia’s centralised territorialising power. Occulted at the margin, Duhas and their homeland loom ‘spiritually sovereign’ beyond the steppe. A Duha territorial group’s repeated mass circumvention of a state permission-restricted mobility system reveals the in situ supremacy of Duhas’ taiga-sourced sovereignty, and how Mongolia arbitrages incompatibility (of its territorial order with reality) in line with its interests.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".