Japan's Ocean Policy: Still the Reactive State?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005-06 Japan's strategic posture towards its maritime domain underwent a dramatic shift. Japan began asserting the jurisdictional rights to its maritime territory with greater authority than ever before. Tokyo prepared to conduct exploratory drilling in the disputed East China Sea and passed new laws to capitalize on Japan's maritime rights and responsibilities.1 This activist turn appears to be at odds with most explanations of Japanese strategic policy. Some have described Japan's strategic evolution as a kata: the measured and gradual expansion of the capabilities, doctrine and missions of Japan's Self-Defence Forces (SDF) ? This pace is a compromise between those who favour a more normal military posture and those that emphasize Japan's pacifist norms and its internationalism.3 Given this preference for strategic evolution, Japan's sudden preoccupation with the security and administration of its extended maritime zones?the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and its extended continental shelf? following years of neglect, is striking. In April 2007, over ten years after it ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Japan passed the Basic Ocean Law that created a new ministry and spelled out Japan's attitude toward its maritime domain. Prior to these events, ocean policy suffered from a case of benign neglect. Although Japan passed an EEZ law as part of its UNCLOS ratification in 1996, its policy initiatives towards its extended maritime environment have lagged behind those if its neighbours, particularly China. Moreover, Japan tolerates a degree of maritime provocation from its neighbours that belies its conventional maritime force superiority.4 This reluctance to assert its jurisdictional entitlements under
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 it