The Mutual Constitution of the Abductions and North Korean Human Rights Issues in Japan and Internationally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The abductions of Japanese nationals by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s figure prominently in Japanese conceptions of the North Korean human rights issue. In the past decade, global discussions about North Korean human rights have also come to include these abductions, the final report of the UN Commission of Inquiry in 2014 being a prime example. How did the abductions and North Korean human rights issues become so interconnected? I argue that these issues are mutually constitutive. Japanese state and non-state actors’ promotion of the abductions issue at home and abroad benefitted international advocacy for North Korean human rights and led to the integration of the abductions issue into the global North Korean human rights agenda. It also promoted awareness of North Korean human rights in Japan. Original interviews and content analysis of UN resolutions, Japanese media coverage, prime ministers’ speeches, and government publications empirically demonstrate the mutual constitution of local and international activists’ discursive messages. This article advances scholarship about feedback loops between local and international activism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".