The Effect of Zionist Lobby on America's Foreign Policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undoubtedly, no country as America is the host and influenced of pressure groups, and because of the existence of the interests and valuation system in America, this issue has made decision making in foreign policy of this country difficult. Among pressure groups in America, Zionist lobbies seem to have the most influence in America's foreign policy. Based on this, it can be approximately said that America and Israel have had special ties after the World War II and AIPAC Group has always guaranteed the continuation of this relationship. A set of factors play role in forming foreign policy of each country internally, nationally and internationally that the outcome of these factors’ action and reactions will is presented as the outcome and "foreign policy". The United Sates of America’s foreign policy is also the same process, based on this according to the international relationships ideas which of the important levels in analyzing foreign policy of the United States of America is internal level whose one of its components is investigating the role of pressure groups in forming the foreign policy of this country, practically the activity of any groups isn’t as prominent and highlighted as Zionist lobby in this subject. Therefore the author of this research is sought to investigate the effect of different shapes of Zionist lobby and the position and performance of this regime in America’s foreign policy towards Iran, hence the arrow of lobbying activities in the area of Iran is also evaluated; consequently in the process of the research, stating that influential element in the system of decision making in The United States of America about the role of stakeholder groups with a focus on Zionist lobby and the unwavering support of the United States from this lobby is undeniable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".