MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042935668 · doi:10.25071/2563-3694.5

Policymaking Process for Foreign Care Workers in Contemporary Japan

2020· article· en· W3042935668 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Izumi Niki

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Sociology Journal of Critical Praxis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCare workGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)CitizenshipImmigrationPolitical scienceImmigration policyOrder (exchange)Public policyInclusion (mineral)Economic growthBusinessEconomicsSociologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes recent policy reforms made to foreign care work in Japan. The two policy reforms discussed in this paper are 1. The expansion of categories in the Technical Intern Training Program (TITP) and 2. The inclusion of domestic workers into the Japanese labour sector through the use of National Strategic Special Zones. By analyzing these policymaking processes, the following four observations were made salient. 1. That policy reforms were largely driven by economic motivations; 2. That the policymaking processes that determined the nature of these reforms were led by politicians who were acting on behalf of the interests of business leaders; 3. That the Japanese government continues to utilize policies that deny labourers permanent residency or citizenship status, such as temporary worker programs, in order to avoid implementing migration practices that allow workers to become Japanese citizens; and 4. That the government holds contradicting attitudes towards care work, whereby eldercare is increasingly considered professional/skilled work, while domestic work is regarded as low/semi-skilled labour. These findings suggest that Japan’s foreign care immigration policies are designed to recruit temporary workers in ways that violate their human rights for the purpose of exploitation, in addition to the original goal of transferring skills to sending countries. With this in mind, I conclude my paper by arguing that these policymaking processes reproduce a gendered, racialized, and classed international division of labour and a global care chain

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Sociology Journal of Critical PraxisSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207