Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preservation of Ottoman heritage has been a contested topic in Turkey over the last few decades. While many studies have attended to the political and economic interests related to the restoration of Ottoman-era architectural complexes and buildings, this article draws attention to the intersecting aspirations and negotiations over the question of preservation by various actors in the historical Fatih district of Istanbul. The district’s historical importance is traced back to 1463, when the Ottoman ruler Mehmet II (ca. 1432–1481) decided to build a monumental mosque complex after the city’s conquest. The construction of additional monumental mosque complexes, madrasas (colleges), Sufi lodges, and shrines in the later Ottoman period transformed the district into a space reflecting the enduring political and socio-religious presence of Islamic and Ottoman urban traditions. Starting from the latter half of the nineteenth century, Ottoman modernization and early twentieth century Republican secularization significantly transformed the district’s built environment and everyday life. Over the last few decades, multiple agents have been involved in reviving the district’s Ottoman heritage, namely, Sufi orders, Muslim civil society organizations, and current government projects to restore Ottoman-era buildings. Drawing upon historical and ethnographic data collected in the district, the article argues that the meaning and function of Ottoman heritage are not static entities; rather, they are discursively constituted within shifting socio-political and economic contexts. While acknowledging the increasing commodification of tangible heritage in post-colonial Muslim cities, the article sheds light on how both shared and contested forms of belonging to the institutional and intellectual heritage of Islamic tradition, mediated by Ottoman-era architectural complexes and spaces, broaden our understanding of living heritage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".