A Review of Shahnameh from the Perspective of Daqiqi Tusi Murder in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Shahnemaeh, we cannot see any express statement about Daqiqi Tusi murder. Ferdowsi's narrative about the murder of Daqiqi is such vague and unclear that has attracted researchers’ attention. Based on Ferdowsi’s opinion, initially, it seems the incentive of Daqiqi murder to be a dramatic process than being a predetermined approach. In another hand, Shahnameh points to the Daqiqi’s bad tempered character. In this regard, Daqiqi murder that is done by his bondservant might have got an interpersonal incentive. The main purpose of the paper is to study the incentive of Daqiqi Tusi murder in Shahnameh context while comparing it with other evidence like Daqiqi’s opposition to a political governing system and appearance of this opposition in his poems. The method used in the study is a descriptive-analytical approach. We conclude that closed tips about the incentive of Daqiqi Tusi murder pointed out in Shahnameh might be misleading indications; thus, further research in this area is highly needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".