Türkiye'de Büyükşehir Belediyesi Sistemi ve 6360 Sayılı Yasa ile Büyükşehir Belediyesi sisteminde Meydana Gelen Değişimler: Van Örneği
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Studies on the topic of with what kind of model big cities will be ruled have been conducted for a long time whether it be in world, or in Turkey. Different approaches were taken about this regard, various practices were done. What first comes to mind is big cities such as London, Paris, Toronto, Tokyo and Istanbul. It was observed that in the disputes on speculative approaches and practice models, two major axes are taken as base. The first axis is about on which scale will the services be efficient and fruitful, and the other is about on which scale local democracy will be performed. In this study, by analyzing the speculative discussions on the two axes mentioned above, which model is being taken as base on the regulations regarding big city managements in our country was decided. To determine this, the law no. 6360, which came out in November 2012 and inflicted changes on a number of laws aside from the Metropolitan Municipality Law no. 5216, and the regulations before that were the starting points. With the last regulation, vital changes in terms of presenting administrative, financial, political and public services took place in the Metropolitan system, and the number of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey was raised up to 29, special provincial administrations were removed from these areas, villages and cities were turned into neighborhoods. The city Van, one of the 13 metropolitan municipalities to which this new structure will be applied, was chosen as the sample, also to which extents and how these changes affected Van were determined by tabulating the data concerning Van. Main purpose of the study is to determine fundamental aspects of the new Metropolitan system, to relay how the topic was handled in the public opinion and academes and to contribute to the discussions with a concrete sample
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle