MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018351896 · doi:10.5539/ach.v4n2p159

Iran and Its Boundaries in Challenging with Foreign Relation (1789 - 1836)

2012· article· en· W2018351896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jafar Aghazadeh, Morteza Dehgan Nezhad, Asgr Mahmud Abade

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Culture and History · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsOrder (exchange)Relation (database)Ancient historyPolitical scienceSociologyLawHistoryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From ancient times, Iran’s boundaries were formed by Iranian kings’ struggles. From that time, an imagination about these boundaries was formed in Iranian minds and has been continued until now. So, one of the important duties of Iranian kings was to expand Iran’s boundaries to that of ancient times. The aim of this research is to investigate Iran’s relations with European countries and the role of these relations in forming the Iran’s boundaries from 1789 to 1828. In this research, a descriptive-analytic method is used. The findings of this research show that in Qajar dynasty, Agha Muhammad Khan and Fath Ali shah made some great attempts to expand Iran’s boundaries to that of ancient times in order to, through which, can legitimate their rule on Iran. These actions made Iran to enter European countries’ politics widely. Russia advanced in Caucasus and the Britain entered Iran’s affairs widely to protect its realms in India, and France set a relationship with Iran in order to access India. Entrance of the unknowledgeable Iranians in international politics led to Iranian amazement, and European countries’ interference in forming the Iran’s boundaries, and, step by step, Iran lost some of its parts.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Culture and HistorySame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207