MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7048600922

Mahalli idareler ve yerinden yönetim bilim dalı stratejik yönetim yaklaşımı ve İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi stratejik planları üzerine bir inceleme

2019· other· tr· W7048600922 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarmara University Open Access System · 2019
Typeother
Languagetr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrategic managementMetropolitan areaOrder (exchange)Strategic planningPublic managementPublic sector
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STRATEJİK YÖNETİM YAKLAŞIMI VE İSTANBUL BÜYÜKŞEHİR BELEDİYESİ STRATEJİK PLANLARI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME
\nKamu yönetiminde yaklaşık son otuzbeş yıldır, büyük ivme gösteren paradigmalardan birisi de şüphesiz stratejik yönetimdir. Stratejik yönetim; işletme temelli bir paradigma olmasına rağmen, gerek gelişmiş gerekse de Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ülkelerin kamu sektörlerinde de tercih edilmekte; etkin, verimli, hızlı, akılcı, öngörülü, bilimsel ve stratejik düşünce temelli bir yönetim mekanizması kurgulamak amacıyla kullanılmaktadır. Stratejik yönetim, planlamanın yanında performans esaslı bütçeleme ve izleme, değerlendirme ve raporlama aşamalarını da içeren çok süreçli bir yaklaşımdır. Bu tez çalışmasında, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi alan çalışması olarak seçilmiş; İ.B.B.’nin stratejik yönetim süreci, 5018 Sayılı Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu, ulusal ve uluslararası literatür çerçevesinde oluşturulan özgün bir model üzerinden bütün aşamaları ile sistematik bir incelemeye tabi tutulmuştur. İ.B.B. süreçlerine yönelik incelemeler neticesinde, tespit edilen sorunlu alanlara yönelik çözüm önerileri getirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Çözüm önerileri getirilirken, Türk kamu yönetimi yapısı ve stratejik yönetim süreçleri incelenen New York, Toronto, Londra, Sidney ve Tokyo gibi metropolitan kentlerin en iyi uygulamaları göz önünde bulundurulmuştur.
\nAND A REVIEW OF STRATEGIC PLANS OF
\nISTANBUL METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
\nOver the last thirty five years, strategic management is undoubtedly one of the paradigms that have shown considerable progress in public administration. Although strategic management is a management based paradigm, it is preferred in public sectors of either developed countries or developing countries such as Turkey and it is used in order to formulate a management mechanism based on an effective, efficient, fast, rational, foresighted, scientific and strategic way of thinking. Strategic management is a multi-process approach which involves performance based budgeting and monitoring, evaluation and reporting stages as well as planning. In this case study, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality has been chosen for the field study and with all stages the I.M.M.’s strategic management process has been subjected to a systematic analysis using an authentic model designed according to Law No.5018 on public finance and control and the national and international literature. As a result of the analysis on the I.M.M.’s processes, suggestions have been proposed for the problematic areas that have been detected. While proposing suggestions, Turkish public management structure and the best practices of the metropolitan cities, such as New York, Toronto, London, Sydney and Tokyo, whose strategic management processes have been examined, were taken into consideration.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0130.012
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3170.007

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.268 · 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