Bibliographic record
Abstract
In The Japanese Family: Touch, Intimacy and Feeling, Diana Adis Tahhan’s research questions emerge out of a sustained encounter with difference: the fact that expressions of intimacy in Tahhan’s own native Australia (particularly through hugs and kisses) differ from expressions of intimacy in Japan. Tahhan highlights a significant puzzle involving how parenting practices in Japan change as children grow older. Relationships between Japanese parents (particularly mothers) and very young children are rooted in bodily forms of intimacy, such as ‘bodily endearment’, ‘prolonged physical proximity’, and ‘skinship’, often understood as ‘intimacy through touch’ (p. 11). However, these practices seem to cease around age five. Tahhan’s objective is to examine the reasons for this cessation and the ways parent–child intimacy is expressed in the absence of what she calls ‘visible’ types of touch. In elucidating the general absence of physical intimacy within families, Tahhan notes that Japanese people often mobilize nihonjinron-style explications of Japanese uniqueness, specifically through explanatory models like the ideas of ittaikan (feelings of one body), ishin denshin (heart to heart communication), and isshin dōtai (one body and mind), all of which posit particularly Japanese ways of communication that do not require physical or verbal expression (p. 10). People in Japan tend to refer to these modes of communication without explaining how, exactly, non-physical and non-verbal communication is made possible. Tahhan explores throughout the book how typically Japanese practices, like co-sleeping and co-bathing, create a ‘relational space and tangible connection that develops in parent–child relationships that is not just felt in the body’ (p. 11), a concept that Tahhan calls ‘touching at depth’. Her book represents an ambitious project to examine the daily practices that constitute familial intimacy without continued physical contact between family members.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".