聖学院大学

Purpose Knowledge organization (KO) is essential infrastructure for document search and discovery, yet institutional investment in cataloging, indexing and metadata infrastructures continues to decline. This paper aims to develop an integrated economic framework for explaining chronic underinvestment in KO. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on information economics, KO outputs are conceptualized as information goods with high fixed costs, non-rivalry, network externalities, option value and weak appropriability. The paper analyzes how these characteristics shape incentives across provision models and illustrates the argument through institutional analysis of library and information services in Japan. Findings KO is subject to two distinct but interacting forms of undersupply. General-purpose KO exhibits quasi-public-good properties that generate free riding and appropriability failure. Domain-specific KO is constrained by market size: even when willingness to pay exists, small user populations cannot sustain the high fixed costs required for professional provision. These mechanisms interact dynamically, producing a disinvestment scissors effect in which the social marginal value of KO rises while institutional investment declines. Research limitations/implications This conceptual analysis does not estimate externalities or investment trajectories; future research should measure KO-related externalities across domains, particularly intergenerational externalities, and compare institutional arrangements. Originality/value Rather than advocating KO as intrinsically valuable, the paper offers a mechanism-based explanation of why KO is systematically underprovided despite its growing societal dependence. It integrates previously disconnected economic perspectives into a unified framework.

This study investigates the dynamics of Bitcoin’s realized volatility by extending the Heterogeneous Autoregressive (HAR) framework to incorporate external shocks from major financial and commodity markets, namely the NASDAQ-100, Brent crude oil, and gold. To capture potential asymmetries, external market returns are decomposed into positive and negative components. In addition, structural changes in volatility dynamics are examined using structural break tests. The empirical results reveal strong volatility persistence at the daily and weekly horizons, consistent with the HAR structure. Shocks associated with the NASDAQ and gold markets are significantly related to Bitcoin’s realized volatility, whereas the association with crude oil prices is limited. Moreover, both negative and positive gold-market shocks display stronger linkages in the post-2022 period, suggesting time variation in the volatility relationship between Bitcoin and gold.

Introduction Hip abductor dysfunction is associated with various musculoskeletal disorders, such as knee overuse injury, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and hip osteoarthritis. Thus, hip abduction exercise is used to improve hip muscle performance. Notably, deep hip muscles might be effectively activated during the hip internal rotation (IR) position. Moreover, it is hypothesized that hip abduction combined with hip IR might activate the deep hip muscles and minimize tensor fascia latae (TFL) activation. Objective This study aimed to investigate the percentage maximum voluntary isometric contraction (%MVIC) and the activity ratio of the gluteus muscles in relation to the activity of the TFL—including the gluteus minimus (GMin), piriformis, and gluteus medius (GMed)—across different hip positions during side-lying hip abduction. Methods Twelve healthy men performed hip abduction exercises in nine hip joint positions. The muscle activities of the lower extremities, including the anterior and posterior segments of the GMin (GMin-a and GMin-p) and piriformis, GMed, and TFL, were recorded via surface and fine-wire electromyography. Results The %MVIC of the GMin-p and GMed was highest in hip extension and IR (EIR) position during the late concentric phase (GMin-p 54.7 ± 27.2 %MVIC; GMed 59.2 ± 36.1 %MVIC; P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the %MVIC of TFL (lower in the hip internal rotation position). The relative activation ratios (RARs) of the GMin-p and GMed to TFL were highest in hip position involving IR during the early concentric or late eccentric phases (GMin-p 3.80 ± 3.65; GMed 2.62 ± 1.72; <0.05). Conclusions Hip abduction during the late concentric phase with EIR position caused maximal hip abductor activity. Conversely, hip abduction during the early concentric phase involving the IR position selectively activated the GMin-p and GMed while minimizing TFL activation.

Purpose Cataloging, rights clearance and archival provenance depend on identifying an author, which generative artificial intelligence (AI) unsettles. This study asks whether lay publics treat authorship, responsibility and creative production as one judgment or three when AI involvement is disclosed. Design/methodology/approach In an online survey of Japanese adults (N = 250, quota sampled by age and sex), participants chose who was a fictional book's author, who bore responsibility for its content and who produced its creative content, after each of three successive revelations of AI involvement (within-subjects; McNemar, Cochran's Q, Holm corrected). Findings Attribution to the named author fell on all three questions, but unevenly. Responsibility fell furthest, and most participants relocated it to the editor and development team, while authorship and creative production fell less and ceased to differ from each other. The questions already differed before disclosure, which reshaped that difference rather than creating it. The robust structure is bipartite, not tripartite. Research limitations/implications Disclosure effects are upper bounds: an editor was visible from the first stage and information was only ever added. The byline and the AI system shared a name, so the convergence may reflect shared reference. The sample is Japanese and the study was exploratory. Originality/value Where earlier work measured each attribution separately, this study tests within participants whether the three differ from one another at each stage. Readers withdraw accountability from a named author while leaving naming and credit intact, a distinction the single authorship field does not record.