Cengiz Han’ın İktisat Düşüncesi ve Mirası
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The first date the Mongolian name was used in historical sources is the VII. century. Mongols were considered an insignificant tribe in this period. The use of the Mongolian name as a state and dynasty coincides with the period of Genghis Khan. Mongols had very close relations with the Turks during the periods when they emerged as a political power, and these two nations were influenced by each other in many ways during the Great Hun, Göktürks and Uyghurs periods. The period when the Mongols played their main role in the world history scene was during the Mongol Empire established by Temüjin. Temüjin gathered the Mongol tribes under a single state administration and received the title of Genghis Khan. The spreading momentum at the time of Genghis Khan enabled the Mongols to establish one of the largest empires in history. So much so that this empire dominated about a quarter of the world. Most researchers tend to explain these expansionist activities of Genghis Khan and his legacy for the successors with barbarism and brute force. However, this explanation is inadequate not only in many respects but also in terms of understanding Genghis Khan’s economic activities and the administrative system he established. The most important reason for this is that the sources related to Genghis Khan period are mostly insufficient. In this study, existing sources will be examined from the perspective of economic history. In addition, the Laws of Genghis Khan (Yassa) will be analyzed in terms of economy. This study analyzes the economic activities of Genghis Khan and the economic structure of the Mongol Empire at that time."
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it