Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the administrative district reform of local government has surfaced once again as one of the most sensitive political and legal issue in Korea. The administrative district of local government is regional unit of local autonomy and living quarter of the resident, namely, the administrative district is a substantial element in local autonomy. Consequently, is the restructuring of administrative districts not simply political issue but legal issue, because local self-governing system is legal system guaranted by the Constitution.But the recent discussion on the administrative district reform seems to have some legal problems in the substantial and procedural aspect. The purpose of this study is to reexamine on the directions and criteria of the recent discussion on the administrative district reform in Korea by comparison of the experience in Japan's administrative district reform.It is undeniable that the decentralization refoms underway in Japan have highly impacts on Korea's refom dirives for decentralization. The integrations even called by Heisei grand-integration in Japan having started in the early 1990s is the decentralization movements driven by a series of political reforms.Since 1999, the total number of Japanese municipalities has decreased by more than 1,400 bacause of political and administrative mergers among them. Consequently, the experience in Japan where local self-governing system is similar with our country becomes meaningful reference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".