MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W632874491

Japanese studies in the United States and Canada : continuities and opportunities

2007· article· en· W632874491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Entomology and Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyPolitical scienceAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)LegislationInstitutionNature versus nurtureChinaEconomic growthPublic administrationPoliticsSociologyLawSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study looks at Japanese studies in the United States and Canada at the beginning of the twenty-first century. It reflects the life experiences and academic training of the people who identify themselves as Japan specialists, and the structures that have been created to house and nurture the study of Japan over the past six decades. It encompasses both Japan specialists and Japanese studies institutions and presents the current situation not only by looking at new survey data, but also by comparing that information with what has been collected and analyzed at several previous points in the relatively short history of the field.The Japan Foundation is the Japanese government's agency for cultural diplomacy and international cultural affairs. Established in 1972 by special legislation in the Japanese Diet, The Japan Foundation became an Independent Administrative Institution in October 2003. Its mission is to promote international cultural exchange and mutual understanding between Japan and other countries. It maintains its headquarters in Tokyo and operates through a network of 19 overseas offices in 18 countries worldwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0230.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Entomology and ZoologySame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207