Japanese-Style Multiculturalism?: A Comparative Examination of Japanese Multicultural Coexistence(日本式の多文化主義か：日本に於ける多文化共生の比較考察)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2006, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications released a report entitled, “Research Group concerning the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence: Towards the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence in Local Communities”. Questions arise when one considers the implications of Japan’s multicultural coexistence initiatives. Specifically, in an environment that could be characterized as unwelcoming to non-Japanese, both at the levels of assimilation and integration, what are the implications of multicultural coexistence initiatives? This paper analyzes Japanese multicultural coexistence policies using multiculturalism model from Canada. The model employed in Canada is a useful benchmark to examine integration trajectories in Japan as they have been in practice for at least 40 years. J.W. Berry’s social psychological model of multiculturalism will be used to pinpoint components of Japanese multicultural coexistence and their intended objectives, especially goals which lie outside the sphere of the realization of rights. 総務省は平成１８年３月に「多文化共生の推進に関する研究会報告書：地域における多文化共生の推進に向けて」を公表した。しかし、多文化共生の手始めに重大な問題が生じる。特に、非日本人を歓迎しないことに特徴付けられる環境において、同化と統合という2つのレベルとして、多文化共生はじめの一歩は何かを示唆しているのか。 本稿はカナダの多文化主義モデルを基に日本の多文化共生政策を検討する。J.W. Berryの多文化主義に関する社会心理的なモデルを利用し、日本における多文化共生の構成要素とその意図的な目標、とりわけ権利を実現する範囲外の目的を指摘する。
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".