Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past decade, Japan's international role has been the subject of a growing literature. Some envision Japan as the new hegemonic power, while others hold a contrasting view. Yet the balance of analysis apparently favors the view that assumes Japan's capability and willingness to play a leadership role. Even those working outside a hegemony versus non-hegemony dichotomy and suggesting co-hegemony, supportership, or an entrepreneurial role, all imply the existence of some sort of (Japanese-style) leadership. For over two decades since the late 1960s, the idea of regional cooperation had been promoted mainly by nongovernmental institutions consisting of academics, businessmen, and governmental officials in their private capacities. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum established in 1989 represents the first and only regionwide official multilateral forum. Since its inception, APEC has expanded to 18 economies: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, the ASEAN countries (excluding Vietnam), China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, Papua New Guinea, and New Zealand. A three year moratorium on new membership was agreed upon at the Seattle APEC meetings in 1993. APEC has become the principal animateur promoting regional cooperation, with other unofficial regional fora such as the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), the Pacific Trade and Development Conference (PAFTAD), and Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) playing supplementary roles. The activities of APEC have doubtless given regional economic cooperation a clearer sense of direction and unprecedented impetus. Given APEC's central role in the institutionalization of regional cooperation and the fact that the forum encompasses both Asian and Western members, Japan's posture toward APEC provides a critical case to test the validity of the often assumed Japanese leadership role.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".