The tendencies of Turkish migration and the Turkish diaspora in North American and Western European countries in the 20th c.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the causes of Turkish emigration, its directions and its dimensions; and it distinguishes the main phases of Turkish emigration to North American and Western European countries in the 20th century. The late application of the concept of Turkish Diaspora is what makes its definition difficult. Attempting to explain, and to differentiate between, the concepts of Turkish Diaspora, Turkish People, and Turkish Native made it easier not to deviate from the object. At the same time, inaccuracies of demographic data caused some complications, especially in view of the fact that these data included not only ethnic Turks, but people of other ethnicity residing in Turkey as well. In the course of determining and reviewing the situation of the Turkish diaspora, its features, activities, and forms of community, organizational, and religious life, the article attempts to reveal the history of the Turkish diaspora in the USA, Canada, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. This article of review and analysis needed to be written, not only because of the shortage of research, in Lithuania and in the Lithuanian language, on Turkish emigration, but also because the number of Turkish residents in Europe and North America is constantly increasing. Seeking to answer problematic questions, the article identifies the factors that led to the Turks‘ emigration and their settling in foreign countries, the conditions under which their diaspora took shape, and their efforts to foster their own cultural identity in the lands to which they emigrated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".