The impact of Levantine community on the westernization process of Ottoman Empire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\nThe aim of this research is to understand the role of Levantines in the westernization process of Ottoman Empire. The scope of the study covers the second half of 19th and the first quarter of 20th century of İstanbul, specifically Galata and Pera regions which took on the appearance of a European city. The method is Center – Periphery Theory. According to the Modern World-System approach, the world is divided into two, center and periphery, and the center means both; the center in geographical sense, and also the center of the cultural values, symbols, beliefs, and behavioural patterns. In this system, above mentioned are demanded and imported by the periphery. The importation process is performed primarily by the privileged actors such as, elite class, tradesman and bureaucrats in the periphery. Within the case of Ottoman Empire and Istanbul at the time, the center was west, particularly France and the way of life was associated to the Belle Époque period. Ottoman elite living in the capital, desired a western lifestyle while the west was taken as a role model of progress during the 19th century and even later. In that period, the Ottoman elite was in a challenging attempt to westernize the Empire in every aspect of life, in collaboration with Levantines who were the European tradesman in İstanbul. Just as the West was recognized as the center of progressing and the Levantine community was the representation of west in the Ottoman capital, in other words, the West in the Orient, so Istanbul was the West in Anatolia as the center of progressing.\n
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".