Turkey-EU relations and the representation of AK Party in the western political and media discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turkey-EU relations have attracted high public attention and academic curiosity as a special case that has provided a fruitful environment for a wide-ranging group of study areas. This thesis is particularly interested in the way in which AK Party and specifically Recep Tayyip Erdogan have been represented in the mainstream western media and political discourse, and how these representations have influenced specific encounters in Turkey-EU relations. \n \nThe changes in the dominant representations over time have a special place in this analysis. This thesis mainly claims that, although there is no linear or causal relationship between representations and policy choices, western media and political discourse on AK Party had decisive influence in limiting possible policy options for policy makers. Positive and praising discourse on AK Party and Turkey that dominated western political landscape enabled EU leaders to open the way for membership negotiations. Similarly, negative and even demonising discourse on AK Party became the biggest obstacle for the continuation of the negotiations. \n \nThis thesis claims that understanding the international social context is crucial in grasping the background of discourses and their influences on actors. Thus, it focuses on post-9/11 international social context with specific emphasis on western security discourses and the rise of Islamophobia in western societies, as crucial factors in shaping the international context during the relevant period. \n \nTurkey-EU relations is at its lowest point since the beginning of accession talks in 2005. The prospects for Turkey’s EU membership are looking bleaker than ever now, as is the representation of Erdogan and AK Party in the mainstream western media and political discourse. By using discourse analysis method, this thesis analyses the representations of AK Party in western mass media and political landscape, especially in the political turmoil during and after infamous Gezi Park incidents in Turkey that highlighted the problems in Turkey-EU relations as a negative turning point. \n
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".