EXAMPLE OF PILOT REGION EXECUTED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ALTINÖZÜ DISTRICT PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the development effort has been the main purpose of societies since the 18th century, its intensive introduction to both the economic literature and the programs of the governments coincides with the end of the Second World War. The Republic of Turkey developed a state policy with the 1961 Constitution. For this purpose, the State Planning Organization was established and the five-year development plans were prepared. One of the important goals of the Development Plans was to ensure social justice. Social justice could only be achieved by eliminating the income imbalance between different segments of the society. For this purpose, special plans were designed for the development of rural areas. Even a section titled “Community Development” was included in the First Five-Year Development Plan. Six pilot regions were selected across Turkey and a special development program was implemented for these regions. If the practices in these six regions would yield successful results, special programs would be prepared and implemented for each district of Turkey in the next fifteen years. One of the six selected pilot regions was Altınözü District of Hatay. The implementation and the follow-up Altınözü development program, which was prepared in 1963, was transferred to the Ministry of Rural Affairs in 1964. Studies were carried out for the implementation of this program in 28 villages of Altınözü and 116 different projects were prepared. However, only 75 of them have been put into effect. Until 1967, 71 projects were completed. This application, which gave successful results, was unfortunately not included in the following development plans.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".