MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980920376 · doi:10.1080/1360080x.2013.825414

Japan’s higher education incorporation policy: a comparative analysis of three stages of national university governance

2013· article· en· W1980920376 on OpenAlexaff
Shingo Hanada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Higher Education Policy and Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Corporate governanceAccountabilityPublic administrationTransparency (behavior)Higher educationCorporationGovernment (linguistics)Administration (probate law)Political scienceAccountingEconomicsEconomic growthManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of countries with public higher education systems have implemented privatisation policies. In Japan, the national government introduced the National University Corporation Act (NUCA) in 2004 and changed the legal status of national universities from that of government-owned public institutions to independent administrative agencies. Its objective was to incorporate them, giving their presidents discretionary power and encouraging financial independence and autonomous administration. Applying McNay’s models of university governance, this paper tracks three stages of university governance longitudinally from 1886, when Japan’s modern higher education system was established, to reveal the historical roots of problems that the NUCA is meant to address. In addition, the effects of the NUCA over the first 6-year period (2004–2009) are examined based on data analysis. Its criteria for analysis are developments in the direction of financial, administrative and intellectual independence, accompanied by increased levels of transparency and public accountability.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Higher Education Policy and ManagementSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207