MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417312608 · doi:10.1080/26883597.2025.2599901

Preserving and excluding: Examining the complexities of diasporic Persian heritage advocacy

2025· article· en· W4417312608 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

VenueLocal Development & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersianGovernment (linguistics)Ethnic groupNarrativeField (mathematics)Indigenous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Iranian diasporan civil society organizations’ (CSOs) role in preserving Persian cultural heritage in the face of the current Iranian regime’s exclusionary policies. We explored this concern by interviewing representatives from five US-based cultural CSOs. We found that these organizations primarily focus on intangible heritage due to their inability to engage directly with cultural preservation inside Iran. While these entities position themselves as advocates of heritage inclusivity, their focus on pre-Islamic heritage as a counterpoint to the regime’s emphasis on Islamic and Shia-centric narratives constitutes a selective approach to cultural representation. This framing risks sidelining cultural practices that developed later. We also found that these organizations have minimal direct influence on Iran’s current cultural policies. Instead, their primary impact lies in sustaining Persian identity, fostering historical continuity in the diaspora, and offering a counter-narrative to the regime’s cultural claims.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.131 · 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