Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that Turkey’s current hard power participation in its region can be understood as “Strategic Participation.” It posits this approach is a shift in strategy, not goals from the “zero problems with neighbours” policy piloted by former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. It applies this argument to the case of increasing Russian regional intervention, and argues that Turkey’s response to Russia is in line with the goal of Davutoğlu’s Strategic Depth doctrine of leveraging historical identity and diversifying strategic relationships. It combines the “principal-agent” and “concordance” civil–military relations theories of Feaver and Schiff to clarify the AKP’s role in foreign policy and employ’s Walt’s “balance-of-threat” theory to assess the Russian threat. It argues that civil–military relations after the Ergenekon and Bayloz trials enabled Strategic Depth to become established in the AKP, and that Turkish concerns over NATO commitment have created a security deficit that exacerbates the asymmetric Russian threat. It then surveys Turkish relations with four states — Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Iraq — along three indicators: shared threat; military co-operation; and economic dependence. It concludes that Turkey is working to bolster co-operation with key regional states to compensate for the perceived “security deficit” in the face of asymmetric threat from Russia, in line with the strategic diversification objectives required under Strategic Participation.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".