MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Kokand Tradition of Bayaz Manuscript Compilation and its Distinctive Features

2025· article· W7165810487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zilola Shukurova

Bibliographic record

VenueGolden Scripts · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural, Linguistic, Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral asiaPeriod (music)Feature (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When bayaz entered Central Asia as a literary source, the demand for it gradually increased. Unlike the other collections of this type, bayaz quickly gained fame because it consisted of a “bouqet” of poets’ works and began to become a popular from the XIXth century. As a result of development, bayaz schools were formed within each khanate while these schools retained the common features of bayaz, each school also began to acquire its own characteristics which are important distinguishing features between them. This situation became especially noticeable in the second half of the XIXth century. Until this period, the bayazes, which had been composed almost identically in the three khanates, gradually began to change in their structure, artistic decoration and content. Along with the creation of traditional bayazes, new types of bayazes were also created, which requires researchers to seriously study the schools of bayazes

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGolden ScriptsSame topicCultural, Linguistic, Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207