SURİYE ÖRNEĞİNDE TÜRKİYE VE RUSYA ARASINDAKİ JEOPOLİTİK İHTİLAFININ İDEOLOJİK NEDENLERİ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Özet Türkiye ve Rusya arasında yaşanan Suriye konusundaki ihtilafta belirleyici öğelerin başında, iki devletin karar alıcılarının ideolojik arka planlarının ister istemez aynı olayı birbirlerinden faklı algılama ve yorumlamaları gelmektedir. Buna göre Türkiye ve Rusya arasında yaşanan kriz konjonktürel değil yapısaldır. Bu makalede iki aktörün ideolojik olarak çevresel koşulları nasıl “okudukları” ve neden karşı karşıya geldikleri karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşımla ortaya konulmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, bu iki aktörün bölgesel konstellasyonda üçüncü ülkelerle olan işbirliği davranışlarında da ideolojik algıların nasıl rol oynadığı gösterilmektedir. (Anahtar kavramlar: Türkiye Rusya İlişkileri, Jeopolitik, Dış Politika ve İdeoloji) Abstract Different perceptions and configurations of the same initial positions or situations of decision makers in foreign decision making processes is a significant determinant in the conflict between Turkey and Russia ın Syria. Accordingly the conflict between Turkey and Russia is not a conjunctural, but a structural one. In this paper it is being explained with a comparative approach how both actors “read” the environmetal conditions ideologically and why they act diametrically. Besides it is showed what kind of role ideological perceptions of both actors play in the constellation in the behaviour of cooperation with third countries. (Key words: Turkey Russia Relations, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy and Ideology)
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".