Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he creation of constitutional research commissions in both the upper and lower houses ofJapan's national Diet in 2000 marked a controlled resuscitation of both the historical enquiry and debate regarding the past and future ofJapan's national charter. Controversy regardingJapan's postwar constitution is nothing new. During the 1950s, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) established a similar constitutional review process. One of the aims of that initiative was to eliminate Article IX, the peace clause that theoretically forbids Japan to wage war or to maintain armed forces. Faced, however, with massive and growing popular resistance from a burgeoning peace movement in the 1950s, the LDP allowed this first attempt at constitutional revision to fade into oblivion. Much has changed in the forty years between the two inquiries but one constant impetus to revise the Constitution has been the historical recognition that Japan's constitution was initially drafted by the staff of General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP). What is less well known is that E. Herbert Norman, a historian of Japan and Canadian diplomat, waged a protracted battle to take the constitutional drafting process away from both SCAP and Japan's ruling oligarchy in order to put it into the hands of the Japanese people themselves. Norman was thwarted in this idealistic endeavor by none other than General MacArthur. Despite SCAP's imperious style in constitution crafting, Norman in the end supportedJapan's new constitution partially because no alternatives were available but also because it enshrined some of the values which he thought reflected the historical aspirations of the Japanese people.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".