The History from the View of the Founder Fathers of the Republic of Turkey: The War of Independence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to reveal how the Turkish War of Independence was told in the history textbooks in elementary schools to the Republic of Turkey’s first generation. The research has been carried out using the historical research method, one of the qualitative research methods. The data of the study have been collected through the primary school history textbooks published between 1924-1928. The data have been obtained through document review. According to the research findings, the subjects of Istanbul’s occupation, the occupation of Izmir, the resistance against invasions, the Battles of Inonu, the Eastern Front, the Battle of Sakarya and the Battle of Dumlupınar are included in the textbooks. In contrast, the Battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir is not included. It is understood that since the textbooks were written right after the War of Independence, this directly affected the content and the language used. It is possible to see the enthusiasm, emotion, excitement, and perspective of the Turkish War of Independence in the textbooks. This situation shows that the process and the atmosphere in the country affect the history education. Moreover, it has been observed that the subjects were told in the form of stories, taking into account the students’ cognitive levels. It is remarkable how the Republic’s fathers told and conveyed the Turkish War of Independence to the Republic’s children about the events that took place just recently. In conclusion, this study demonstrates how the present-day Turkish history textbooks have evolved from those entirely subjective textbooks of the early Republic era.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".