The Concept of Modernization of the Ottoman Empire in the XVIII century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article examines views and current conceptions of theory of modernization applied to the so called “Eastern societies” and more to the Ottoman Empire as the most prominent non-European political actor and one of few states that survives the domination of the “West” during XIX century. Due to its origins in 1960’s, theory of modernization encompassed wide and numerous ideas, theories and concepts in desperate attempt to clarify, how backward and generally weak, comparing to its Eastern neighbors-rivals European civilization (mainly Western European) became economically and so force politically stronger and suddenly turned the tables, enslaved almost all the world for century. Europeans created new or renovate old institutions (frequently in spite of themselves) to became fitter than their competitors in worldwide struggle for wealth, both political and economic. Theory of modernization tries to explain when, how and by whom these changes were incentivized. It took a few decades to create various and rarely views depends on scholar’s scientific methodology and research methods, ideological preferences and ethnicity. Simultaneously, such European-based theories were applied to the non-Western societies due to find out the reasons of their second-rate positions, which appeared obvious to anyone in the last quarter of the XIX century. Author tries to apply a methodic instrument given by theory of modernization to analyze the process of reforms in XVIII century Ottoman Empire and what their efforts in political, economical and moreover mental spheres lead them into a trap of vicious circle of reform. The main question, were the innovations, provided by Ottomans a simple westernization (in the meaning of mindless compilation of European-created institutions) or in was straight purpose to emulate “Western” societies – to become stronger and sufficient, using their own resource and methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".