Geopolitics of Film: Valley of the Wolves—Iraq and Its Reception in Turkey and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates Valley of the Wolves— Iraq as a cinematic text produced and widely consumed in domestic and international cinema markets. By placing a non-Western movie in the analysis of film studies, the authors claim to situate the film in a three-part analysis that has received less attention from other disciplines. First, the film can be situated as a cinematic challenge to the American media representation of the Iraq War and to the Bush administration’s “war on terror” discourse in so-called unstable regions. In addition, Valley of the Wolves—Iraq attempts to negotiate and contest the meaning and the depiction of the war discourse in Iraq brought to bear by American popular, practical, and formal geopoliticians by reproducing the cinematic space and retelling stories of the war from the “other” vantage point. Second, the film in its own right can be located as a cultural product that attempts to consolidate the geopolitical imaginations of Turkey in the Middle East and the world. Third, this study aims to formalize audience interpretation of such political entertainment using empirical techniques. In this context, the critical question is how and to what extent this film plays a representational role within Turkish society and how it affects audiences’ geopolitical perceptions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".