Görülmeyeni Görmek: Üstünler Söylemine Ontolojik Bir Sorgulama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is pointed out that the discussions about gifted tend to increasein national and international area in the last quarter of the century.Special practices, symposiums, publications, institutions, undergraduate and graduate programs have been prepared with the parallel to thesediscussions and it is said that these children have been lost so far. AlfredBinet (b.1857-d.1911) who stated his concerns about using IQ testwhich is formed in 1904 for children having learning difficulty as alabeling instrument (Gould, 1996). Topçu (1960) stated that a geniuscould not be tested, on the contrary it was a malter of insight. LeadingTurkish philosopher Farabi (b.872-d.951) claims that being intelligentas a fact which requires not only being intelligent necessarily but also itneeds moral intellect. When discourses about gifted are analyzed, byconforming Topçu and Farabi like Binet, the statements like notwasting gifted in masses, labelling, seeing gifted children as a vitalcapital for the county and necessity of increasing special implementation is likely to be often encountered. In practice, although childrenwith disability do not have schools that are equipped with necessary physical facilities in Turkey, gifted children are provided with opportunities in Bilim Sanat Merkezleri (Science and Art Centers) that are notsustainable in terms of humanity, and provide comfort and one to oneattention. In short when all above mentioned issues are taken intoconsideration, the need for presenting a critical perspective is obvious.This study is an ontological questioning attempt in the intellect-human-society contexts
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".