MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416335383

The usa policy on Iranian nuclear issue (2000-2014)

2014· article· en· W2416335383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Մհեր Սահակյան

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œEighteenth century/˜The œeighteenth century (Lubbock, Tex. Online) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear weaponPolitical scienceTreatyIslamic republicGeneral partnershipNuclear powerNuclear technologyEconomic historyPoliticsLawHistoryPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After 1953 when the USA’s CIA was heavily involved in the coup that toppled Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and returned the power to the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the USA increased its influence in Iran and stood patron and protector, or at least a reliable supplier of weapons. The USA gave added impetus to Iran nuclear ambitions. USA and western powers like Federal Republic of Germany, France, Britain, and Canada helped Iran develop its nuclear program. In Tehran the USA built Nuclear Research center which was equipped with 5 megawatt research reactor. For this nuclear facility uranium was supplied by the USA. On July 1, 1968 Iran signed the Treaty on the Non -Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and ratified it in February 1970. The USA continued to support Iran in its nuclear program till 1979. Because of the Islamic Revolution, the U.S. partner Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was toppled by Ayatollah Khomeini and fled from Iran. As a result the U.S.-Iranian strategic partnership collapsed. Americans stopped helping Iran in its nuclear program and used their influence to pressure other countries to halt cooperation with Iran in

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œEighteenth century/˜The œeighteenth century (Lubbock, Tex. Online)Same topicEconomic Sanctions and International RelationsFrench-language works237,207