MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138034957 · doi:10.1017/s1537592707071927

Reprogramming Japan: The High Tech Crisis Under Communitarian Capitalism

2007· article· en· W2138034957 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Dyer‐Witheford

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Politics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Industrial and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitalismSocialismOutsourcingPolitical economyEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyEconomic historyLawCommunismPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reprogramming Japan: The High Tech Crisis Under Communitarian Capitalism. By Marie Anchordoguy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005. 257p. $39.95. Over the last 20 years, Japan has passed from wunderkind of global capitalism to problem child, troubled by recession and stagnation. Marie Anchordoguy's Reprogramming Japan joins the growing body of analysis diagnosing this sad falling off, focusing on the crisis of the high-technology sectors where silicon samurai once seemed to reign supreme. In Anchordoguy's view, the cause of the problem is “communitarian capitalism.” This is a capitalism that depends heavily on state direction—governmental support for select large firms, a social contract assuring citizens permanent employment, regular wage increases, and union–management deals for labor peace. This, she suggests, is something verging on socialism. Although it has “all the trappings of private property and profit-making institutions,” the dynamism of the market is constrained by a system that “favor[s] social stability over efficiency” (p. 7). It is, in her view, “quasi-capitalism” (p. 7). Communitarian capitalism, she argues, laid the basis for Japanese success from the 1950s through the 1970s, when global economic conditions were positive, technological trajectories were clear, and foreign products could be reverse-engineered. But in the 1980s and 1990s, intensified competition, transnational outsourcing, and fiercely enforced intellectual property rights made this system a fetter on the very forces of production it had fostered.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on PoliticsSame topicAsian Industrial and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207