Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Pacific War the Japanese government recruited hundreds of thousands of workers for military construction projects throughout the occupied territories. Mistreatment of workers was widespread, and the number of deaths arising from beatings, malnutrition, and disease was enormous, rivaling the holocaust of Europe. The victims were primarily unskilled laborers drawn from cities and rural areas across Asia. Most were men, but many women and children also found their way to the work sites, and perished there. Because most victims were illiterate, and the Japanese destroyed nearly all records relating to labor recruitment, the story of their experiences has not been previously told. In this book, an international group of specialists on the Occupation period examine Japan's wartime labor needs, and the recruitment and use of workers (whether forced, military, or otherwise) throughout the Japanese empire. Based on documents drawn from archives throughout Asia and in the United States and the United Kingdom, their accounts are careful reconstructions of events based on fragmentary materials. The first study to look at Japanese labor policies comparatively across all the occupied territories of Asia during the war years, the book provides a graphic context for examining Japanese colonialism, and relations between Japan and the territories occupied by its military forces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".