Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative case study aims to explore reasons that led to the absence of the Japanese father from the family, how it affects the present situation of Japanese-Filipino children (JFC), and to conceptualize socioemotional factors that influence JFC’s life. The study covers current situations and socioemotional and socioeconomic problems of JFC and used standard qualitative techniques to gather field data. This study has identified that JFC are shaped by sociocultural and socioeconomic differences between Japan and the Philippines that play in individuals’ lives and decisions. The union of two people from different cultures and nationalities coupled with socioeconomic struggles and each individual’s underlying reasons to unite (marriage/cohabitation) may also lead to their separation. Furthermore, the study identified several unique socioemotional factors of the JFC as well: perceived unique ethnicity, the retention of a degree of love to the father who abandons them, and the need to see their fathers instead of feeling hatred and anger. Despite their abandonment, the JFC feel proud of their Japanese culture. Finally, JFC feel they belong to two culture groups; they consider knowing and belonging to both cultures to be their destiny.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".