Study Power of Supreme Leader in Iran Judicial System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the Islamic Revolution, the issue of the powers of the supreme leader was only considered in terms of scientific attention. However, the importance of this issue was more obvious, when was brought from the scientific scope to the practice scope. Should adopt religious support of these principles in the Constitution of the Islamic sources, especially traditions, with the Islamic Revolution and the rule of the supreme leader at the helm of the Islamic Republic of Iran and his authority in the Constitution. In addition, investigate the opinions of jurists, especially those who opposed or believed to limitations in supreme leader’s authority to come closer to what is right. In this study, two titles of supreme leader authority and judgment included, that both have high importance In Shi'a jurisprudence.Certainly, there are differences in the powers of the Plenipotentiary, and this case flows in the exercising sovereignty towards the general judicial policies. Since the judges permitted by Plenipotentiary, and in most cases are not religious jurisprudence, so the position and value of judgments rendered by them are evaluated, and even religious jurisprudential judges and above all Head of the Judiciary, all in the application of laws are obliged to comply with the Plenipotentiary. The main goals of this thesis are studying the power of plenipotentiary within the scope of form rules and establishing special courts and the substantive rules as retribution, amnesty and repent, that all show the extent of the powers of the Plenipotentiary in the judicial system. Judgments rendered can be very efficient, especially in cases of conflict between judgments rendered and his ratings and comments in the benefit observance of society and Islam.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".