The Comparative Study of Morals and Democracy and Their Effect on the Behavioral Reflections of Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and John Dewey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was aimed at comparatively analyzing morals and democracy from John Dewey and Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi’s view point. It also sought the effect of the two philosophers’ view point about morals and democracy and behavioral reflections. The purpose of this study was also to become familiar with the effect of morals and democracy on behavioral reflections of John Dewey (as the west representative of the behavioral reflection). It also tries to familiarize the readers with Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi’s view point as the Iranian and Islamic representative of the behavioral reflections. The similarities and differences existed among the mentioned philosophers were identified. This was a descriptive and analytical research study. The study investigated the philosophers’ opinions with regards to human beings, morals and democracy and their effect on the education and training. The results of the study showed that there are differences between John Dewey and Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi’s view point about human beings, morals and democracy. The differences were effective on their behavioral reflections, too.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".