The Advent of Liberal Democratic Multiculturalism? A Case Study of Multicultural Coexistence Policies in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2006, the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) released a report called the “Research Report on the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence.” Targeted primarily at newcomers, but also at Japanese citizens, its aim was to implement a series of measures under the rubric of multicultural coexistence that would minimise intercultural friction between the two groups and facilitate the lives of foreign residents living in Japan. Questions remain though as to what exactly multicultural coexistence is, and how it differs from multiculturalism as seen in the countries most experienced in multiculturalism such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. The aim of this paper is to examine Japanese multicultural coexistence by employing liberal democratic multiculturalism as a yardstick. This paper will locate Japan’s multicultural coexistence policy within the liberal democratic multiculturalism debate and examine whether or not Japanese multicultural coexistence adheres to the principles and ideals of the liberal democratic multiculturalism tradition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".