MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suspended Equilibrium in Iran's Political System

2004· article· en· W2154019162 on OpenAlexaff
Mehran Kamrava, Houchang Hassan‐Yari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Muslim World · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityState (computer science)PoliticsPower (physics)Political economyRivalryPolitical scienceCompetition (biology)LiberalizationIslamBalance (ability)Political systemSociologyDemocracyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two sets of power relationships have emerged in the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran: official, institutional relationships outlined in the Constitution, and unofficial, informal ones existing between and within groups and clusters of powerful individuals and institutions. The juxtaposition of informal factional alliances with the formal institutions of power has resulted in the development of a precarious balance within the state, as ‘hardliners’ and ‘softliners’ vie for greater influence and the adoption of their agendas as official state policy. The ensuing results have been two‐fold. On the one hand, the emergence of multiple centers of power has enhanced the extent and reach of the state in relation to various social strata, thus bestowing it with considerable durability and staying power. On the other hand, the existence of multiple official and unofficial venues for competition has sharpened the tenor and substance of factional rivalries. For the most part, each of the factions has so far been able to balance out the influence and agendas of the other. At the same time, however, since the ‘softliners’ by and large advocate greater political liberalization, these very factional rivalries have had some modest consequences in opening up the Iranian polity. Ultimately, the pace and direction of political liberalization in Iran will depend on the outcome of the ongoing rivalry that is currently being played out within official state institutions and unofficial power‐cliques.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Muslim WorldSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207