WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A KIND DAUGHTER‐IN‐LAW IN JAPAN: LONG‐TERM CARE FOR THE ELDERLY IN JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the reasons for delay in the development of a universal public long‐term caring system and public insurance system for the frail and elderly in Japan, up to April 2000. Japan is one of the richest countries in the world but is also a relatively aged society. However, it lags behind other OECD countries in the development and provision of long‐term care services. In Japan, over half of women are not in paid employment and a quarter work in unstable and low‐paid jobs, mostly due to the scarcity of permanent positions for married women and strong social expectations relating to the role of Japanese women. Most Japanese people believe that married women will be the primary carers for both young and old members of the family. As a result of this expectation, the introduction of long‐term care insurance for the frail elderly was delayed until April 2000. Long‐term care insurance has lightened the burden of caring for the frail elderly. However, it still requires women at home to provide primary care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".