MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617864487 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n6p95

Iran’s Changing Foreign Policy Trends

2017· article· en· W2617864487 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Iqra Jathol, Muhammad Qazafi, Tahir Husain

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyPoliticsRevenueGovernment (linguistics)Isolation (microbiology)Political scienceState (computer science)Foreign relationsInternational relationsForeign policy analysisDevelopment economicsPolitical economyInternational tradeEconomyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The changes in international politics caused change in foreign policies of the states. The governments of many countries began to develop foreign policies to alliances and relations. According to with the "Look to the Iranian government, the East" can serve Iran's national interests and can break dependence on the West and balanced foreign policy problems: political isolation logical isolation. These are caused by Iran's foreign policy; Iran has rejected the prevailing norms of the international system and the regional dynamics. The immediate consequences are: political showdown with the West particularly the U.S. and in the region tensions have increased with the neighbors. At the same time Iran heavily relies on its oil and gas revenue to achieve an economic growth. At this time when Iran is facing increasing international isolation, "Look to the East" policy can serve as fine recipe for its stagnated oil business and the Asian nations. Iranian state is looking proactively towards the Asian Countries especially India. Iran’s foreign policy raises many unanswered questions. The objectives of study to provide an account and assessment of Iran’s relations with the outside world within these new systemic conditions and account of Iran’s relations with the rest of the world will be preceded by a brief historical account of these relations. The study tries to highlight about Iran’s foreign policy? How does Iran define its interests and choose to pursue them? Is this a matter to be explained or to be understood? Is its foreign policy based on words or deeds, behavior or action?

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207