MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522657200 · doi:10.1057/s41304-016-0074-7

Japanese political science at a crossroads? normative and empirical preconditions for the integration of women and diversity into political science

2016· article· en· W2522657200 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Political Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PoliticsPolitical scienceInclusion (mineral)ImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)SociologyFeminismComparative politicsGender studiesPolitical economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Japan combines demographic challenges of decreasing childbirths and an ageing population, yet political unwillingness to use immigration to ease labour market and caregiving shortages. Paying attention to gender, diversity, and inclusion would seem to be a ‘rational’ political choice. Although Prime Minister Abe (Abe II) understands the need to appear to be responding to Japanese women qua equal citizens, women remain more an ‘object’ of LDP policy than a substantive beneficiary. To improve his image, Abe has incorporated ‘Womenomics’ into his strategy of economic revitalisation; the result has been a rather incoherent blend of ‘equal participation’ and ‘women’s utilisation’. In 2016, the dearth of diversity and anti-feminist sentiment within Japanese politics continues to be mirrored in both passive and active ways within the discursive and institutional political climate, including within academia. It is largely premature to assume a shared normative or scientific commitment to inclusion and diversity in Japan. Japanese Political Science (JPS) is no exception, and this has obvious implications for what constitutes a ‘serious’ political issue worthy of study, what gets funded, who gets hired, and the extent to which critical debates within feminist political science (FSP) on gender, race, and diversity are taken seriously. In this article, I offer a preliminary evaluation of JPS in light of three indicators: the under-representation of women in Japanese academia generally and political science specifically; the access of FPS to large-scale government funding grants (2003–2013) and its impact on the discipline; and recent efforts by feminist political scientists in Tokyo to create a ‘home’ for debates on gender, diversity, and political representation. I conclude with a hopeful expectation that increasing numbers of political scientists in Japan will begin to genuinely problematise the dearth of diversity in Japanese politics and to approach this fundamental puzzle of Japanese democratisation with the intellectual curiosity that it deserves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.050
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it