Evaluation of Regional Development Policies in Turkey’s Five Years Development Plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five years development plans are prepared by State Planning Organization (former name), Ministry of Development. Development Plans are significant policy documents including information about resources of development goals in long term and related regulations to be made in Turkey. Ten different development plans including the years between 1963 and 2018 were prepared. The common basic goal of these plans is: Ensuring a fortunate and prosperous life for Turkish citizens, raising life standards to higher levels. Reaching more prosperous life standards is possible through a long term and systematic development effort. Regions including cities (except metropolis), districts and villages are called rural areas. Efforts for increasing the economic level of people living in rural areas by using and supporting natural resources in these areas are named regional development policies. Regional development policies are firstly determined and shaped in development plans. Economic activities in rural areas are mostly based on natural production resources. Regional development is only possible through efficient use of these local resources. The basic goal is to decrease the difference in the level of economic, social and cultural development between development priority regions and the others. The goal of this study is to present the preparations that should be made and focus on present and future problems. Qualitative design document analysis technique is used in this research; local development policies that are mentioned in ten development plans are analyzed. Findings, results and suggestions are presented at the end of the study.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".