MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103494422 · doi:10.5539/ach.v5n2p77

A Study on the Effects of Ghazan Khan’s Reformative Measures for the Settlement of the Nomadic Mongols (1295-1304)

2013· article· en· W2103494422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roohollah Ranjbar, Fereydoon Allahyari, Hussein Mir Ja'fari

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Culture and History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVagrancyGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolarization (electrochemistry)Settlement (finance)Development economicsEconomic historyHistoryPolitical scienceAncient historyLawPolitical economySociologyEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to elaborate the effects of Ghazan Khan’s reformative measures for changing Mongol lifestyle. They migrated from one place to another to make a living but after his reforms, they were settled. Mongols were among the people who lived in the Central Asia usually made raids on the neighboring nations. They had taken to a life of vagrancy and never wanted to be settled in a particular place. When they entered the civilized Persia, the Mongolian government became highly polarized. On the one hand, the Mongols habitually destroyed the government’s sources of income (agriculture and trade), and on the other, they were its military force, whose existence was a necessity. As this polarization continued, political and economic crises emerged, too. Then, Ghazan Khan, by some actions, hindered the collapse of the Ilkhanate. As a result, the Mongols underwent a self-imposed settled life but it was against the great Yasa code of Genghis Khan.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Culture and HistorySame topicEurasian Exchange NetworksFrench-language works237,207