THE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF THE 1920 SULTANAHMET PROTEST MEETING IN THE PERIOD OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NATIONAL PACT AND THE OCCUPATION OF ISTANBUL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The events that took place in the first days of 1920 constitute an important process that cannot be ignored for the History of the National Struggle. As is known, during the last quarter of 1919, the Ottoman Parliament elections were held. These elections were won by the overwhelming majority of the Association for the Defense of the Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia. However, it is known that the Allies in the period of the elections carried the hope that a more harmonious political structure will be formed in the next period. The Allies were not immediately able to take decisions that determined the fate of the Ottoman State, protesting atrocities committed by soldiers in the occupation during this period. However, these protests are followed by changes in the number and intensity of the events relative to the time that the waves are emitted. The aim of this study is to emphasize the repercussions of D. Lloyd George’s statements about the future of Istanbul in the Ottoman political life by revealing the nature of the Sultanahmet meeting on January 13, 1920, chronologically different from the others. In this context, the speeches made during the meeting were emphasized. In the study, the sources of the period, “Vakit” and “Tasvir-i Efkâr”, together with Kemal Arıburnu’s “İstanbul Mitingleri” work was used. In this study, it was mentioned the importance of the protest meeting in Sultanahmet, the increase of the sensitivity of the Turkish public about Istanbul and the Straits, and the decision to leave Istanbul at Turks in the London Conference on 15 February 1920.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".