Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this paper are 1) to identify the politicians (Diet members) who played important roles in higher education in post-war Japan; 2) to examine their social characteristics and (3) to investigate the patterns of their influence in the political structure of higher education and in policy making decisions. \n\nThe study identified the 376 Diet members who made statements in that body’s educational subcommittees from 1945 to 2012. Moreover, these 376 Diet members were divided into three groups ― “core,” “middle,” and “peripheral” ― in rank order of the number of their pronouncements, and their social characteristics were analyzed. \n\nThe analysis yielded the following results: \n\n1) More than half of the core group were born between 1925-1934 and belong in the generation growing up during World War II. \n\n2) Many of core group were from big cities. On the other hand, in the peripheral group, many of them were from Chugoku, Shikoku, Kyushu and Okinawa areas. \n\n3) Almost half of the core group in the House of Councilors were Socialist Party of Japan (SPJ) members and 30% of them were Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) members. On the other hand, more than 60% of the core group in the House of Representatives were LDP members. The pattern and process of discussions were different between both houses. \n\n4) A quarter of the members of the core group in the House of Councilors were graduates from normal schools under the old system. In the House of Representatives, many of them were graduates from The University of Tokyo and other national and public universities. \n\n5) In the House of Councilors, about 30% of each group majored in pedagogy. In the House of Representatives, many of them majored in law and economics. \n\n6) In the House of Councilors, almost half of the core group were union members (the Japan Teachers Union). In the House of Representatives, many were members of the local assemblies, and many of the core group was ex-bureaucrats. \n\nAs above, the political actors who participated in the post war educational policy were not uniformed. This means that a variety of ideas and discussions had been presented in policy making and decisions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".