The Development of the Transit Trade of Iran in the Triangle of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Iran In the second Half of the 19th Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transit trade of Iran had great importance for both the Ottoman Empire and the European economies for accessing raw materials. This trade had largely been under the control of the Ottoman Empire until the last quarter of the 18th century. The loss of this monopoly according to the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji in 1774 and the gradual domination of Russia over the Caucasus turned the transit trade of Iran into a big problem between the Ottoman Empire and Russia in the following period. In this study, the course of the transit trade of Iran in the 19th century will be evaluated with its development in different areas within the context of the policy measures taken by the Ottoman Empire to prevent the diversion in the transit trade and taken by Russia to attract this trade to its territory. Concordantly, the development of regional trade under this competition is aimed to be set forth using primary sources. The findings show that the commercial activities in the north of Iran were gradually seized by Russia, and the Ottoman government could not realize the attempts needed under the constraints it had, which resulted in and the emergence of alternative routes between the West and Iran.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it