Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>During the rule of the Safavid dynasty (1502-1722 AD) the chancellery and royal documents played an important role in the administration of the state affairs.<br />The royal documents constituted one of the main components of the chancelleries in management of the day-to-day affairs.<br />The said documents are one of the main sources of research which include all royal communications, decrees, documents, political agreements, administrative and officials writings, economic, cultural and military reports, judicial, financial and legal documents as well as private and family communications.<br />Hence a study of the royal documents would shed light on the mode of administration during the said era. The present paper is an attempt to review the main features of some of the documents circulated in the chancelleries and throughout the state during the Safavid era. The Safavid documents can be divided into various categories on the basis of their functionalities. The main thrust of the present paper is to discuss the nature of the diwanyat as well as their functions in the administration of the state where there was no constitution and the royal decrees and other forms of royal documents effectively played the role of the constitution and law. Attempts have been made to rely on the original documents, which are available in different archives, libraries and museums.</p>
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".