MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144128295 · doi:10.18999/calealb.9.3

Japanese Legal Technical Assistance : An Overview and the Case Study of Vietnam

2023· article· en· W7144128295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Koichi CHINONE

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStonefly species taxonomy and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Legal researchQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than a quarter of a century, the Japanese government has been providing “legal technical assistance,” a form of Official Development Assistance (ODA), to help mainly Asian countries develop their judicial and legal systems. This article presents the basic institutional framework of Japanese legal assistance, its formulation process, an overview of current projects, and refers to the underlying principles of such assistance stated in official documents such as the Development Cooperation Charter. It also presents a case study of Vietnam, which has the longest history of receiving legal assistance from Japan. In Vietnam, four legal assistance projects have been implemented so far, resulting in numerous achievements in drafting and revising basic laws and improving the legal system. The current project, which started in 2021 and is expected to end in 2025, sets an unprecedented goal of equipping Vietnam with the capacity to compete globally, and aims to update its legal and judicial system to meet international standards. At the same time, the current project exemplifies the recent trend in Japan’s legal assistance and hints at its prospects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicStonefly species taxonomy and ecologyFrench-language works237,207