The Role of British Military Experts in the Formation of the Qajar Troops in the First Quarter of the Xix Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research deals with the role of British military experts in shaping Qajar troops during the Russian-Iranian wars of 1804–1813 and 1826–1828. The article is based on a wide range both of published works and archival material. A greater portion of yet-unpublished materials dealing with the activities of British officers in Iran, as well as diplomatic documents and legislative acts is kept at RSHA1 and RSAN2. Besides, the author has relied on materials of the British Library, Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections, including archival materials of India Office Records (1858-1947).3 In addition to archival materials, the research has referred to existing sources, correspondence between diplomatic representatives of Great Britain and Russia, Qajar Iran, diaries, memoirs, travel notes of participants and contemporaries of the epoch in question. The above facts make it possible to examine the eastern policy of England, its relations with Qajar Iran, and specifically, questions arising from aid (military experts, uniform and weaponry) and funding for army reorganization; also, the attempts made in this directions by the heir to the throne, fiAbbas Mirza (1789-1833). The article does not pretend to provide a comprehensive analysis of this scantily explored subject, but aims to give a brief review of striking examples of British-Qajar interaction in the military sphere.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".