MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2427050588 · doi:10.5539/ach.v8n2p76

The Concept of ‘MiOra’ in the Ancient Iranian Mythology

2016· article· en· W2427050588 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahlagha Mortezaee, Mohsen Abolqasemi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Culture and History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyZoroastrianismEmpireMeaning (existential)Greek mythologyHistoryLawSociologyAncient historyClassicsPhilosophyReligious studiesIslamEpistemologyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MiOra (male) is the name of one of the Ancient Iran’s gods. MiOra, meaning ‘contract’ and keeping it within measure, is the gist of Manichaean ethics and has mighty and theurgic forces. The myth prevalent in Mihr-Yašt is that MiOra observes all the contracts agreed upon in the society, sets people free of troubles, and brings peace and security. The myth has had important consequences for beliefs and behaviors of the people of the time. However, even though MiOra was dignified in Zoroastrianism, Ohrmazd was regarded as God of gods in this religion. Yet, MiOra is close to Soroush and Sun and has a lot in common with them. He was also highly dignified in the eras of Achaemenian, Parthian Empire, and Sasanian and could find its way to Europe in the era of Parthian Empire. The remnants and remainings of the Mithraic religion and temples can also be observed in Iran’s ancient athletics and Zurkhaneh. The purpose of the present paper is to give the readership a review of the concept of MiOra, as it was conceived in the ancient Iran and the relationship the concept has with some other significant concepts that were contemporary to MiOra.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Culture and HistorySame topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207