MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977474275 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v5n2p188

Lineage Influence on Nationality from Islamic Republic of Iran law View Point

2012· article· en· W1977474275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sattar Azizi, Bijan Hajiazizi, Razieh Hassankhani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityLineage (genetic)LawGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceCivil codeIslamSociologyImmigrationHistoryBiologyGeneticsPhilosophyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nationality is an important issue in governments’ and their national’s international relationships. In this article, we're trying to have an examination on the kind of lineage which is considered as a criterion in giving nationality according to the blood principle. What's that kind of lineage? What's the criterion; is it only the legitimated lineage related to the children who were born lawfully? Or natural children who are born unlawfully and illegally can also get the nationality based on the blood principle from their parents, just like legitimated children? The legal lineage has been supported in the Iranian civil law's note 2 of the article 976. In the Iranian nationality code, the supported lineage based on the blood principle is the legal lineage; so the natural child is recognized as Iranian relying on the note 3 of the article 976(based on jus soli) in the Iranian civil law. Another issue to be considered is that, when's the best time to A. Coagulate the sperm for the child? B. Give birth to the child?C. Marriage for the parents?D. Considering government's interestsE. Authorizing the childUltimately, different comments and suggestions are considered to observe the rights of both the child and the government.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicRomani and Gypsy StudiesFrench-language works237,207