MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196320820 · doi:10.34739/his.2021.10.05

Military Architecture and the Four-Spāhbed System for Defense of the Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE)

2021· article· en· W3196320820 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoria i Świat · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsLangara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirePeninsulaContext (archaeology)ArchitectureAncient historyByzantine architectureGeographyEngineeringPolitical scienceHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Sasanian military architecture with respect to its integration with the four-region Spāhbed system (Ādurbādagān-Spāhbed, Xwarāsān-Spāhbed, Xwarbārān-Spāhbed and Nēmrōz-Spāhbed) for defending the empire. Following an overview of Sasanian military architecture within Iran, the article examines the Darband wall of the Caucasus in the context of the office of the Ādurbādagān-Spāhbed facing the empire’s north and northwest (Ādurbādagān, Media Atropatene corresponding with the historical Azerbaijan in Iran’s northwest), the Tammisha and Gorgan wall systems of the Xwarāsān-Spāhbed facing the nomadic warrior peoples of the Central Asia, the military architecture of the Xwarbārān-Spāhbed facing the western (Romano-Byzantine) frontiers, and the Khandaq-e Shapur of the Nēmrōz-Spāhbed facing the southwest, notably raiders from the Arabian Peninsula threatening the empire’s southwest marches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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