MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311681163 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-15315

Competitive Securitization in Civil-Military Relations: Internal Threats and Civil-Military Power Dynamics in Turkey, 1980-2016

2019· dissertation· en· W4311681163 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Aubrey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersYork UniversityHarvard University
KeywordsCivil–military relationsSecuritizationSpanish Civil WarPolitical scienceCivil societyBalance (ability)TurkishPower (physics)Political economyLawPoliticsBusinessSociologyFinancePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil-military relations (CMR) theory often holds that internal threat reduces civil control.However, this is not always the case: Turkey, which faced constant internal threats between 1980 and 2016, saw several periods of increasing civil control, particularly under President Özal (1989-1993) and the AKP after 2002.This study proposes that 'competitive securitization' between civil and military authorities explains these disparities in civil-military outcomes.In this framework, internal threat itself does not decreases civil control.Rather, civilian and military agents each 'securitize' internal threats, legitimizing measures that shift the civil-military balance-of-power in their favour.Where military securitization is more successful, civil control decreases, and vice-versa for civilians.This study applies this framework to eight key periods in Turkish CMR between 1980 and 2016.It finds that, with the exception of the early 2000s when EU accession dominated CMR dynamics, 'competitive securitization' provides a strong explanation for changes in Turkey's civil-military balance-of-power.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207