The Similarities and Differences between the Arbitration and Judgement Verdicts in Iran’s Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of current research is to determine the similarities and differences between the arbitration and judgement verdicts in Iran’s laws. The results of current research indicate that there are many differences and similarities in the arbitration and judgement field in Iran’s laws. General similarities, attributes of judge and arbitrator from religious jurisprudence’s view, verdicts in Iran’s internal laws, investigation with reasons, and final sentence in the arbitration and judgement verdicts can be mentioned as some of these similarities. Also about the differences, some cases like: observance of the principles and adducing to the legal articles at the time of composing the verdict, observance of the formalities and judgement provisions in issuance of verdict, verdicts in terms of requesting for the revision, ability to appeal to the Supreme Court, rehabilitation, jurisdiction, protestation, issuance of verdict by judges and arbitrators, procedural conditions in composing the verdict, regard to recite the verdict in terms of being revisable or non-revisable, third-party entry ability, attracting the third-party, features of verdicts in terms of the ability to prove, possibility to issue the request for garnishee and temporary commandment, correction of verdict, the features of verdicts in terms of the res judicata, competence for issuance of reformatory report, competence for issuance of preliminary (interlocutory) decree, moratorium for objecting about the verdict, the third-party’s ability to object about the verdict, having the relative effect, changing the verdict (judge exemption, arbitrator exemption), communication of verdict, the manner of judgement investigation with courts, investigation dependent on provisions of civil judgement rules, investigation dependent on judgement principles (correspondence principle, observance of the defense right of parties), competence for investigation of the legal affairs, start to investigate, the investigation range, the investigation place, being overt or non-overt, investigation and transmission to the another person, difference between arbitration and judgement in the religious jurisprudence and judge and arbitrator positions from the religious jurisprudence are some results obtained at current research.
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".