MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1755841888 · doi:10.4000/ejts.5008

Heritagisation of the “Ottoman/Turkish House” in the 1970s: Istanbul-based Actors, Associations and their Networks

2014· article· en· W1755841888 on OpenAlexaff
İpek Türeli

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of Turkish studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishScrutinyContext (archaeology)VernacularObject (grammar)Political sciencePromotion (chess)UrbanizationSubject (documents)HistoryEconomyLawEconomic growthArchaeologyPoliticsArtLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “Ottoman House” or “Turkish House” refers to a category of urban, vernacular, residential buildings. As a heritage object, it has been the subject of many studies and monographs; however, its formal “heritagisation” in the 1970s has not received due critical scrutiny. This heritagisation process is connected with post-World War II European preservation discourses responding to growing concerns about the destruction of historic city centres through rapid urbanization; in the context of Istanbul and Turkey specifically, heritagisation is also related to the emergence of new actors and legal arrangements, all of which are encouraged by a host of supranational organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, and their heritage promotion policies. By tracing the interactions of Istanbul-based actors and their networks, this article discusses how and why the Ottoman/Turkish House, originally used to define a nationalist and revivalist professional agenda in the first decades of the 20th century, was turned into a heritage object in the 1970s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of Turkish studiesSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207