Türkiye'de Büyükşehir Belediyesi Sistemi ve 6360 Sayılı Yasa ile Büyükşehir Belediyesi sisteminde Meydana Gelen Değişimler: Van Örneği
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on the topic of with what kind of model big cities will be ruled have been conducted for a long time whether it be in world, or in Turkey. Different approaches were taken about this regard, various practices were done. What first comes to mind is big cities such as London, Paris, Toronto, Tokyo and Istanbul. It was observed that in the disputes on speculative approaches and practice models, two major axes are taken as base. The first axis is about on which scale will the services be efficient and fruitful, and the other is about on which scale local democracy will be performed. In this study, by analyzing the speculative discussions on the two axes mentioned above, which model is being taken as base on the regulations regarding big city managements in our country was decided. To determine this, the law no. 6360, which came out in November 2012 and inflicted changes on a number of laws aside from the Metropolitan Municipality Law no. 5216, and the regulations before that were the starting points. With the last regulation, vital changes in terms of presenting administrative, financial, political and public services took place in the Metropolitan system, and the number of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey was raised up to 29, special provincial administrations were removed from these areas, villages and cities were turned into neighborhoods. The city Van, one of the 13 metropolitan municipalities to which this new structure will be applied, was chosen as the sample, also to which extents and how these changes affected Van were determined by tabulating the data concerning Van. Main purpose of the study is to determine fundamental aspects of the new Metropolitan system, to relay how the topic was handled in the public opinion and academes and to contribute to the discussions with a concrete sample
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it