MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391645842 · doi:10.51204/harmonius_23114a

Iran and Saudi Arabia conflicts causes

2024· article· en· W4391645842 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Salimi

Bibliographic record

VenueHarmonius Journal of Legal and Social Studies in South East Europe · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceAncient historyGeographyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Iran and Saudi Arabia as two Regional Powers, due to their Geo-economic and Geopolitical position, are the most important Regional Players in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, which have long been known as the two main competitors in the Middle East. These two countries according to the benefit from their specific Strategic position in the region, are very vital in the Middle East. Due to the importance of these two countries in the region, relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have a significant impact on other regional actors. Following the developments of recent years in the region, we have witnessed a serious rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia that was becoming more complex day by day, which above all, for the benefits of the Western Powers, especially the United States of America, and increases their influence in the region, and naturally, it is to the detriment of these two countries and other members of the Middle East. In this article, we will examine the most important causes of conflicts between these two states, Saudi Arabia’s approach regarding Iran and the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the actions of the Saudis and the relations between these two powers in general.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarmonius Journal of Legal and Social Studies in South East EuropeSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207