MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413776702 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2025.2504873

Evolving Border Fortification Policies in Türkiye as a “Walled Country”: A Comprehensive Analysis

2025· article· en· W4413776702 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nihan Kocaman Mert, Hakan Ünay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFortificationPolitical scienceRegional scienceBusinessInternational tradeDevelopment economicsEconomic growthEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a “borderless world,” promoted by globalization, is increasingly challenged by the construction of border walls since the early twenty-first century. Türkiye, situated at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East, serves as a unique example of a country surrounded by walls both built by itself and against it. This study examines Türkiye’s evolving border fortification policies, focusing on its borders with Syria, Iran, Greece, and Bulgaria. By comparing historical developments and current fortification efforts, the research investigates how security concerns, migration, and terrorism have influenced these policies. Using Securitization Theory and Critical Border Studies, the study provides insights into the role of border fortifications as tools of national sovereignty, regional stability, and geopolitical power in the context of Türkiye’s security strategy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207