RECONSIDERING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN JAPANESE RESIDENTIAL CARE AND THE ROAD TO FICE JAPAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to foster interactive discussions with other countries, this paper offers an overview of residential care for children in Japan and its ongoing development. Japan still relies especially heavily on the residential care system; this is due to the past process of development more than to traditional Japanese culture. The period from the post World War II era to the present is briefly described, including the rapid growth in the number of institutions before 1960, the rather stable period before 1990, the revision of the Child Welfare Act in 1997 permitting the privatization of institutions, and the movement towards problematizing child abuse in the mid 1990s, after which residential institutions were designated as the last resort for maltreated young people. In the present situation, smaller institutions and a foster care system are strongly promoted in accordance with international guidelines for alternative care and the recent governmental guideline based on the Child Rearing Vision of 2010 and the Child Welfare Act of 2016. The task of present Japanese residential care institutions is to realize a family-like environment and a better placement strategy, collaborate more with specialists to improve the standard of care, function in the community as centers for the care of children in need, and expand their care work for young adults and care leavers. The paper concludes by stressing the need for more international exchange among individuals and groups working in Japanese residential care.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".