Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the information society developments in Turkey. Utilizing analytical insights of Foucault’s governmentality to move beyond state-centric approaches and to focus on the practical, productive and imperfect operations of power, it identifies four main actors of governance through which the rationalities and practices of information society are developed and disseminated: the Justice and Development Party, the European Union, global development organizations and information society experts. The article demonstrates that despite their different and sometimes competing backgrounds and projections, each actor promoted neoliberal governmentality and maintained that Turkey’s information society strategy should be regarded as an opportunity for further liberalizing the economy and mobilizing citizens of Turkey with digital and entrepreneurial skills. While Turkey’s information society strategy has certain technical inefficiencies and limitations in its reach, it clearly demonstrates the political ambitions of integrating Turkey into global capitalism, and the contemporary governmental phase in Turkish modernity in which local and global actors have started playing important roles. Such decentralization of governance does not mean that authoritarianism in Turkey has ended. In fact, neoliberal rationalities have intersected with the existing authoritarian ones to produce globalized yet compliant citizens who are under digital surveillance. The case of Turkey demonstrates that rather than being a linear process, governmentality advances through complex local and global articulations and may coexist with authoritarianism and surveillance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".