A Brief Study of Principles and Conditions of Certain Authorities of Religious Minorities in Iran’s Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is hardly a country or a government in the world which all its citizens are of the same race or ethnic background, speak the same language or follow the same religion. Indeed, there is one majority in most countries in the world which have the same history, culture, language, religion and nationality. Besides, there are some small groups in those countries that have their own ethnical, lingual and religious characteristics called minorities. The religious minorities which are part of each society are citizens of that society and as a result, they have the rights and promises like other citizens in the same society. Religious minorities have always been given special attention in holy Sharia of Islam and they have lived next to Muslims during centuries and, consequently, they have had rights and promises. One of the privileges given to the religious minorities is their legal independence for taking civil action by religious minorities. Such issue has been considered by legislator in different laws in Iran. So that it necessitates an analysis of its principles and conditions for taking civil actions concerning the approved laws in legal system of Iran. The present paper aims at shedding some lights on the same subject.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".