Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In light of debates over the compatibility of Islam and democracy, their importance in the EU candidate state of Turkey which has been led by the religious-based Justice and Development Party (JDP) since 2002, and the paucity of research examining liberal-democratic value change, we examine liberal-democratic value change and its sources in Turkey between 2000 and 2008. The results of our descriptive, factor, and multivariate analyses of European and World Values Survey data (2000, 2001, 2007, and 2008) indicate that despite Huntington's (1996) and Turkish secularists' pessimism, people in Turkey have not adopted more politically religious values during this time. However, personal expressions of religiosity are on the rise, and they are intertwined with politically religious values to some extent. People in Turkey have generally adopted less politically authoritarian values, but they are more supportive of military rule in 2008 than before the JDP came to power. Ethnic tolerance peaked in 2007 but declined below its 2001 level in 2008. While human development theory helps to explain these trends and values, the case of Turkey reveals that other, more political factors –such as nationalism –may counteract liberal-democratic value change. The results are suggestive of a political realignment in Turkey that transcends a secular-religious divide. They further suggest that Turkey is moving neither ‘East’ nor ‘West’; rather, it is very much moving in its own direction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".