3 Temmuz 2011 sürecinde kriz haberciliği ve futbol kulüplerine etkisi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3 TEMMUZ 2011 SÜRECİNDE KRİZ HABERCİLİĞİ VE FUTBOL KULÜPLERİNE ETKİSİ\nÇalışmada 3 Temmuz 2011 süreci olarak adlandırılan futbolda şike iddiaları çerçevesinde yapılan haberler yazılı medya üzerinden ele alınmıştır.\nBu çalışma Türkiye'de kriz haberciliği ve spor alanında özgün bir örnek taşıdığı için ulusal ve spor yazılı basını incelenmiştir. Şike ve teşvik fiilleri, Türkiye'de spor tarihinde çeşitli zaman dilimlerinde gündemde olmasına rağmen, bu tip eylemlerin suç olarak kabul edilmesi 14/04/2011 tarihinde gerçekleşmiştir. \n3 Temmuz 2011 sürecini kriz bazlı bir olay olarak tanımlayarak ulusal bir gündem oluşturmasının yanı sıra kriz haberciliği ve yanlılık tartışmaları ekseninde 3 Temmuz 2011 sürecindeki şike iddialarına ilişkin haberler üç ulusal, iki spor gazetesi özelinde incelenmiştir.\nABSTRACT\nCRISIS REPORTİNG DURİNG THE COURSE OF 3 JULY 2011 AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE FOOTBALL CLUBS\n\nWithin the study, the news concerning the match fixing claims in football, which is named as the June 3 2011 process, has been examined through the written media.\nThis study deals with the national and sports written media since it has a unique style in the field of sports and crisis reporting. Despite the fact that match fixing and promotion have been popular several times in the sports history of Turkey, considering such activities as criminal acts has started since the date of 14.04.2011.\nJuly 3 2011 process has creared a national agenda, as it's defined as an event of crisis. The news related to the match fixing claims and discrimination during the July 3 2011 process has been on the focus in three national, two sports newspapers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.011 |
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".