MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Geography of Reception: Why Do Egyptians Watch Turkish Soap Operas?

2015· article· en· W1029311296 on OpenAlex
Necati Anaz

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArab world geographer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishSOAPMiddle EastSympathyMedia studiesAdvertisingGeographySociologyHistoryPsychologySocial psychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen an increase in the number of Turkish soap operas broadcast outside of Turkey, particularly in the Arab world. Turkish television stars quickly became pop idols in the Middle East and the Balkans, creating great sympathy for the Turkish identity, culture, and values. Egypt, with its large population and great importance in the region, epitomizes the salient geography of audiences where Turkish soap operas have become a pervasive phenomenon, and is therefore the focus of this study, which explores two sets of questions: (1) How have Turkish soap operas influenced Egyptian people, mainly students, in terms of their understanding of Turkish culture and Turkey's role in the Middle East? What kinds of Turkish soap operas do they watch, and what actors do they favour? (2) Why do people watch Turkish soap operas? What do they do with them? How can Egyptian audiences' interpretations of Turkish soap operas be conceptualized, signified, and classified? How and to what degree does Egyptian soc...

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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