MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157008655 · doi:10.1080/13530194.2021.1900780

The rise and demise of Safavid-Kizilbash millenarianism in Western Asia: an ecosystemic institutionalist explanation

2021· article· en· W3157008655 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseMillenarianismAncient historyPolitical scienceHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper makes two main contributions to Safavid-Kizilbash studies. First, it subjects millenarianism of the Safavid-Kizilbash movement, which has been commonly accepted but only briefly mentioned thus far, to analytical scrutiny by using concepts from the millenarian literature. Second, by critically engaging the neo-institutionalist literature, it develops and applies an ecosystemic institutionalist framework that takes ideas seriously to account for the rise and demise of this Sufistic millenarianism. The post-Timurid period constituted a critical juncture conducive to millenarian movements in the Western Asian ecosystem. Facilitated by this favourable climate, Safavid-Kizilbash millenarianism rose on an innovative articulation of ʿAlid Sufism in the Perso-Islamic ideational tradition and tribal corporatism in the Turco-Mongol political tradition. However, the institutional requirements of state building coupled with ecosystemic pressures led the Safavids to drop Sufistic millenarianism in favour of a shariʿa-centric Twelver Shiʿism, leaving the Anatolian Kizilbash as an inward-looking, defensive community under Ottoman rule.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Middle Eastern StudiesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207