MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002167400 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2008.150532

Promoting Health in American-Occupied Japan Resistance to Allied Public Health Measures, 1945-1952

2009· article· en· W2002167400 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sey Nishimura

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public healthResistance (ecology)WelfareMedicineGerontologyPolitical scienceNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As soon as the authority of the Public Health and Welfare Section (PHW) of the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers waned in May 1951, the Japanese government overturned several measures it had implemented. Although the PHW contributed greatly toward improving public health conditions, not all of its activities were models of cooperative success. Many Japanese perceived some measures-terminated pensions for wounded Japanese veterans, lack of support for segregated orphanages for mixed-race children, and suppression of Japanese atomic bomb medical reports-as promoting US national interest at the expense of Japanese public health needs. Similarly, the PHW's upgrade of nursing education and separation of the professions of medicine and pharmacy were reversed because neither professionals nor the public saw these measures as urgent. Their reinstitution toward the end of the twentieth century suggests that the progressive measures were sound, but broke too sharply with Japanese tradition and were enforced prematurely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207