Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1958 Lebanon Crisis， Japan was for the first time requested by United Nations to contribute military personnel. With this in mind， the purpose of this article will be to clarify the facts behind Japan's U.N. policy during the Kishi Nobusuke administration (1 957-1960) by examining the events which led to Japan's involvement in the 1958 Lebanon Crisis. Secondly， through this examination the article wi1l revaluate Kishi's foreign， in particular the concept of his so-called “autonomous diplomacy". The Hashemite Kingdom in Iraq was overthrown and the United States， fearing that the revolution might spread， quickly sent troops to Lebanon. The deployment of U.S. troops in the Middle East was strongly opposed by the United Arab Republic. and the Soviet Union. The Kishi administration also criticized the U.S. action， but at the same time proposed a solution to. the incident by submitting a draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council. Although it was vetoed by the Soviets， U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold maintained the concept of Japan's proposal. Japan's proactive diplomacy during the crisis was highly praised by the U.N.. Although Kishi and particularly Foreign Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama pursued and autonomous diplomacy for Japan， the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration also regarded Japanese draft as extremely helpful in resolving the situation. Thus Kishi's autonomous diplomacy had the potential to evolve Japan's foreign policy into the category of “middle power" such as Canada and Scandinavia. However， when Hammarskjold requested Japan send Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon as a way to implement Japan's proposal， the Kishi administration balked at the U.N. request. Behind this decision lay strong and vocal domestic political opposition in sending the SDF abroad， even at the behest of the U.N.. It was at this moment when Japan relinquished any possibility of becoming a “middle power" in the U.N ..
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".