MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081852322 · doi:10.26650/turkjhist.2020.004

Kanglı (Kao-Ch’e) Boyları Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme

2020· article· tr· W3081852322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmet Taşağıl

Bibliographic record

VenueTarih Dergisi / Turkish Journal of History · 2020
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribeTurkishPoliticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Ethnic groupPopulationAncient historyState (computer science)EthnologyHistoryDemographyHumanitiesAnthropologySociologyArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Living in tribe formation and forming tribes are important features in the field of Middle Asian History. The Ting-lings, Kanglıs and Töleses were three important tribes up until the second quarter of the 7th century. After 627 these little tribal groups would be more prominent and they would be mentioned with their respective names. In the time of the Huns, the main tribal group recorded in the sources was that of the Ting Lings. In 4th century AD, this main tribe vanished and was replaced with the Kanglıs who were stuck between three great political powers, the Tabgaçs, Akhuns and Juan Juans, and were thus unable to form a state, although they have an interesting place in history due to their cultural features. After maintaining their existence for 200 years the Kanglis would became Töles and they would be the nucleus of the Gök Türk Khanate’s population. Then they would be mentioned by name among the other tribes that had participated in political events, and they contributed to the formation of the ethnic structure of the modern Turkish world. Investigating the main tribe formations along with the great dynasties will shed light upon the origins of Turkish history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTarih Dergisi / Turkish Journal of HistorySame topicLinguistics and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207