Voluminous Socialities: Honeybee Conservation, Commerce, and Commons in Transcarpathia, Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of intra-species diversity in Western honeybees ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus ) in places where they evolved is considered a key factor in honeybee declines. Conserving local honeybee populations via a “conservation by utilization” approach is thought to be the most effective response because it fuses breeding for conservation and for commercially-useful traits. Tensions arise, however, from this approach’s dependence on queens’ marketability and its distinctive three-dimensional spatiality. Because queens mate with many drones several kilometers from their nests, conservation- and commercially-oriented breeders rely on isolated mating stations to ensure specific queens and drones mate. This article draws on ethnographic research and oral history interviews conducted between 2018 and 2025 to analyze conflicts over the use of isolated mating areas in western Ukraine’s Transcarpathia Oblast to breed Carpathian honeybees before and after Russia’s full-scale invasion. Suspicion that non-Carpathian drones were placed at a commercial mating station led to the creation of new stations, including a collaborative community-based one which sought to “common” the “drone atmosphere.” I argue that these conflicts can best be understood by a) framing the history of Carpathian honeybees in terms of resource-making on imperial peripheries and b) using a concept of “voluminous socialities” which builds on and extends geographical and anthropological conceptualizations of non-military-, non-state-focused volumes, sociality, and interspecies relations. My analysis enriches geographical debates about three-dimensional spatiality and deepens our understanding of what it means to do honeybee conservation in a non-EU European periphery amidst changing political economies of beekeeping and an imperial war.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".