Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comparative analysis of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Bahrain's February 14th movement as two Islamic countries which have been highly affected by each other in various fields is of great importance.By adapting the most critical Western ideas about the Islamic Revolution of Iran and analyzing its similarities and differences with Bahrain's February 14th movement, some of their most significant similarities and differences can be found.The " Goldstone's fourth generation " theory, which was presented as one of the late theories in the cause of the revolution, was evaluated by some scholars of the Islamic revolution in Iran and is still under investigation.The present study aimed at explaining the similarities and differences between the two events and evaluate the influence Bahrain's movement from the Islamic Revolution of Iran through the comparative analysis of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Bahrain's February 14th movement based on Goldstone's fourth generation theory.The findings of this study which were obtained based on a descriptiveanalytical method and collection of sources based on the library and interviews with elite indicated that the Bahrain's system in Bahrain's February 14th movement attempted to deny the effect of the Iranian revolution on Bahrain and introduce Bahrain's developments due to religious differences between Shiite and Sunni.However, the findings indicated that a significant portion of the spirit raised among the Bahraini Muslim people was affected by the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran which can be observed from the very similarities of Bahrain's February 14th movement with the Islamic Revolution of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.977 | 0.977 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".