The Reasons for Drawing Attention to Western Iran (Kermanshah Province) During the Second Half of Sassanian Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, Iran plateau has nurtured different cultures and due to its natural and geographical characteristics, has linked east cultures to Mesopotamia, so that the civilizations related to this plateau have served considerably humanity for a period of 1000 years. Among these cultures, the ones related to the western part of Iran plateau would play significant roles. Zagros foothills which have stretched from northern to the southern west are replete with green and affluent valleys with a distinguished position for the establishment of various cultures since ancient times. Kermanshah as a region located in such western parts draw the attention of Sassanid kings at the last years of fourth century (AD) (the second half of Sasanian kingdom), and Fars province became secondary to Sassanid s. Kermanshah in this period was a part of Mai or Mad located in Koust Khourbaran area, and later this region was called Kermanshah covering lands from Nahavand to Ctesiphon.There are several reasons to Sassanid kings attention in the second half of the Sassanid era to the western parts of Iran including military factors, religious beliefs, good weather, the existence of Khorasan wide road (Silk Road), tendency to gaining independence from religious centers and also commercial and economic factors. This paper, using historical documents and data and applying historical research techniques, attempts to investigate the geographical and political situation of the central Zagros region and the reasons for Sassanid kings attention to this region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".