MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804222414 · doi:10.5539/jms.v8n2p28

Evaluation of Environment Policies in Turkey’s Development Plans

2018· article· en· W2804222414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaşar Akça, Melih Öztürk, Ali Namik Gunes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTurkish Urban and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrialisationOrder (exchange)BusinessEnvironmental planningProcess (computing)UrbanizationDevelopment environmentChristian ministrySustainable developmentTurkishEnvironmental pollutionEconomic growthPolitical scienceEnvironmental protectionEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicTurkish Urban and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207