Horse breeding, wrestling and racing: From central Asia to Anatolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, "Stallion wrestling," which was made in the nature of horse¬herds (yilki) and a designated area for horse breeding in ancient Turks, is presented with some arguments. Explaining briefly the importance given to horses and horse breeders in ancient Turks and today's Central Asian culture, how stallion wrestling was formed and transformed; it was aimed to seek answers to the questions of why horse breeding was not done with this wrestling method in the Ottoman Empire, but it was done with a canter running system and to recognize and introduce this ancient traditional struggle. In this study, which was carried out with the descriptive definition method, which is among the qualitative study patterns, document/text analysis was also carried out. It has been understood that almost all of the ancient Turkish-Mongolian peoples, except for the archaeological findings in the museums of Southern Siberia, the petroglyphs in the same geography and Central Asia, and the Anatolian Balkans, practiced stallion wrestling for breeding purposes, at least until the last quarter of the 20th century. Today, the wrestling struggles of the stallions continue in the Central Asian geography for the leadership of the semi-wild snakes released into nature; the Turkish tribes of the Altai Republic, who were victorious and took their stallions, made stallion wrestling once a year in the third week of July in the "Folk- Game/El-Oyun" festival. However, it was removed from the 2022 program because it was seen as contrary to animal rights by those who came to this festival. But wrestling continues in the rural areas of the Altai Turkic peoples and all-over Inner Mongolia. The 'horse races' for horse breeding in the Ottoman Empire intensified in the second half of the 19th century, and it was understood that they were not held for breeding purposes after 1920. © 2023 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".