MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W128917291

Takeover in Tehran: The Inside Story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture

2001· article· en· W128917291 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Middle East Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnsaidValue (mathematics)Political scienceLawSociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IRAN Takeover in Tehran: The Inside Story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture. by Massoumeh Ebtekar (as told to Fred A. Reed). Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2000. 243 pages. Appends. to p. 246. Notes to p. 256. $14.95 paper. Reviewed by William J. Daugherty Massoumeh Ebtekar was spokeswoman for the who captured the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. She claims to seek an alternative view of that event in hope of opening understanding and dialogue between the United States and Iran. She will probably be disappointed, for this work stands little chance of fulfilling her wish, offering little by way of justification that wasn't said 21 years ago by the students. Nor is Ebtekar assisted by her co-author, whose Foreword is so blatantly anti-American that even those inclined towards the Iranian perspective will find it hard to credit. Any value to the book resides in Ebtekar's account of the planning for the takeover and the day-to-day management of the hostages. She states that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the clerics were not informed, much less involved, in the initial capture of the embassy, and identifies the student's goals: the breaking of Iranian-American relations, the return of the Shah for trial, and the condemnation of the United States in world opinion for its policies towards Iran. An additional motivation, left unsaid by Ms. Ebtekar, is that the takeover was an attempt to revive an Iranian revolution running out of steam and leaving Iranians frustrated and disappointed over unfulfilled promises of a better life. The embassy capture did rally the Iranian populace initially, but this faded as Iran began to suffer under sanctions levied by much of the world, particularly nations whose help Iran needed the most. This was the first, but not the only, aspect of the takeover that backfired to the detriment of all Iranians. To name two others, it is improbable that the Soviet Union would have invaded Afghanistan or that the Iraqis would have attacked Iran had there remained a formal relationship between the United States and Iran. These two events cost millions of casualties, including hundreds of thousands of Iranians. The students who captured the US Embassy in 1979 bear a direct responsibility for this. Ebtekar shows in numerous examples how, once the takeover was accomplished, this act was transformed into a government-supported violation of international law, and how the students themselves subsequently became de facto agents of the government. The internal chemistry of the student groups involved in the takeover is likewise interesting, if only as a study of group dynamics in abnormal situations. The students established a well-organized bureaucracy that functioned reasonably effectively. This is no small accomplishment in that they had intended to hold the embassy for only a few days, and so had to improvise as time passed without a resolution of the crisis. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it