MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095802859 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n4p141

The Roots of Tension in South Caucasus: The Case of Iran- Azerbaijan Relationship

2013· article· en· W2095802859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdollah Baei Lashaki, Masoumeh Rad Goudarzi, Davood Amraei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsPoliticsPosition (finance)Independence (probability theory)IdeologyGeographyPolitical scienceTerritorial integrityEconomyDevelopment economicsEnergy securityPolitical economyEconomic geographySociologyEconomicsLawSovereignty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iran and Azerbaijan are key countries in the Caspian Basin, thanks to their historical continuity, religious and cultural similarities, shared energy resources and strategic position. However, since the independence of Azerbaijan, complex and contradictory interactions have shaped their relationships, influencing the region dynamics. However, in initial stages, political and ideological differences affected the ties, but impacts of sharp increase in geopolitical importance of Caucasus and Caspian Basin in past two decades and role of external factors could not be ignored. Forming of new borders and political blocks as well as reaching energy resources made the region focal point of world geopolitics and provided grounds for intervention of regional and trans-regional powers, aiming to attain their security, political and economic goals and interests. This study examines security, political and economic factors in both internal and external levels, which have contributed in extension of the conflicts between Iran and Azerbaijan in the past two decades.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicGlobal Energy Security and PolicyFrench-language works237,207