Alevi Kimliğini Diasporada Müzakere Etmek: Toronto Alevi Göçmenlerinin İfade Kültürü Pratikleri
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bu calisma Toronto Alevi toplulugunun kabul edildikleri ulkede ailelerini daha genis bir toplum icine entegre etmeye calisirken, ayni zamanda kendilerine ait geleneklerini surdurme ve kimliklerini koruma cabalarini inceliyor. 2007 yilinda gerceklesen ve 10 aydan fazla suren alan calismasina dayanan bu arastirmanin temel tartisma konulari; Toronto’daki Alevi gocmenlerin kendilerine ait bir kimlik bilincini ve toplumsal bir tutunumu surdurup surdurmedikleri ve bunu nasil gerceklestirdikleri sorularini icermektedir. Toronto Alevi toplulugunun muzik ve dans pratiklerine ozel onem verilecektir. Muzik ve dans gibi ifade kulturu pratikleri diaspora topluluklari ile bu topluluklarin anavatanlari arasindaki iliskilerin cozumlenmesinde analitik bir mercek saglar. Cunku diasporadaki pek cok toplulugun muzik ve dans pratikleri kimlik insa etmenin bir araci olarak degerlendirilirler. Kokleri Turkiye’de bulunan diasporik bir topluluk olarak Toronto Alevi gocmenleri, yabanci bir cevrede, ancak bununla birlikte ulusotesi aglarla birbirleriyle iletisim halinde, Alevi gecmisleriyle iliskilerini yansitmak ve toplumsal tutunum saglamak icin kulturel ve muziksel icralara ozel onem verirler. Turkiye’deki ve Kanada’daki Alevi hareketini karsilastirmali bir perspektiften ele alan bu calisma, Turkiye’deki Alevi uyanisinin Toronto’daki Alevilerin ifade kulturu pratiklerine ne olcude yansidigini arastirmaktadir. Anathar Kelimeler: Alevi Kimligi, Goc, Diaspora, Ulusustuculuk, Muzik ve Semah
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".