MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320020322 · doi:10.29051/el.v8i00.17679

How was the common communication language dropped in the turkish world?

2022· article· en· W4320020322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehmet Jan

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista EntreLinguas · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishAlphabetCivilizationState (computer science)Period (music)Quarter (Canadian coin)Ancient historyHistoryIslamArabicPolitical scienceEconomic historyLinguisticsLawArtArchaeologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turkish communities living in various geographies of the world have played an important role in every period of history. By the middle of the 10th century, the establishment of the Karakhanid state and its Islamic period started a new era for the Turks. Influenced by this civilization, they used the Arabic alphabet until the first quarter of the 19th century. 20th century Russian Turks had bad results. According to the "Policy of Nationalities", the Soviets divided the geography in the USSR. Stalin implemented the policy of Tsarist Russia to dissolve Turkish communities more quickly and abolished the Arabic alphabet used by Turks with the decisions taken at the 1926 Baku Turkic Congress. After that in 1928, Turkey changed the alphabet and got the same alphabet. The cultural unity among the Turks would be revived but Moscow was hesitating. Without wasting time, USSR brought the Cyrillic alphabet and ultimately, the new generation has cut off contact with each other.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista EntreLinguasSame topicLinguistics and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207