Evaluation of Environment Policies in Turkey’s Development Plans
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
Turkey’s five years development plans had been prepared by State Planning Organization (SPO) before 2011; since that time, Ministry of Development has been preparing these plans. The plans include the resources of development goals and preparations that are necessary in order to reach these goals. There are ten development plans including the years between 1963 and 2018. The basic goal of all these development plans is to ensure Turkish citizens have a fortunate and prosperous life. The environment, which is the topic of the article, is the setting in which human continue his biologic, economic, social and cultural life. Its significance of the environment is increasing especially in terms of production, employment and trade every day. The goal of this study is to review environment policies included in the development plans, to analyze their relations with other policies, to bring up Turkey’s environmental problems to the agenda and to develop solution suggestions to these problems. Development activities should be carried out without causing any damage to the environment. Protection of environment should be prioritized during the process of urbanization and industrialization. This research is based on qualitative design document analysis technique and environment policies that are mentioned in ten development plans are analyzed. Rather than fighting with environmental pollution, it is much more economic to take precautions in order to prevent it.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it