Carpets Design and Map Investigation of Baluch of Khorasan (Case Study of Areas Taibad and Khaf)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application design and role in carpets from different regions of Iran, represents the effects of nature and each region according to the customs, different doctrines, attitudes, different ideas and perceptions that to the design and creation deals. Region of Khaf and Taibad of southern Khorasan are rural conception graph of nature and beliefs of people of the region that are appeared as geometric and semi-geometric. In the study the attempt is to present motifs and colors in the southern regions of Razavi Khorasan carpets that are less explored, examined, and derivate. According to the initial hypothesis carpet designs of carpet in the areas are influenced by neighboring nations. The research questions that will be addressed in the study include: what are the common motifs in South Khorasan carpets, especially in the regions Khaf and Taibad? To what extent the pattern has root in neighboring ethnic groups and immigrants' carpet weaving? In this descriptive and analytical study based on fieldwork and librarian study, first a significant number of contemporary carpets were observed and photographed in the area index motifs has derived and then the motifs were named based on local weavers' information and accommodation of neighboring ethnic motifs and categorized by content. The results indicate that geometric patterns affected by ethnic Baloch and Turkmen motifs and semi-geometric patterns by Arabs Afshar and central regions of Iran. Many of the acquired maps have no clear name and identity and require rooting in neighboring cultures, especially in Sistan and Turkmen carpet.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".