{
  "name": "雇用不安・組織再編・レイオフ・公正な移行 研究の質と限界",
  "version": "0.1",
  "notice": "簡易評価であり正式なRoB評価ではない。",
  "assessments": [
    {
      "study_id": "greenhalgh-1984",
      "design": "conceptual review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "古典的概念論",
        "現在の非標準雇用・アルゴリズム管理を直接扱わない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "de-witte-1999",
      "design": "narrative review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "観察研究中心",
        "因果方向に限界"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "hellgren-1999",
      "design": "longitudinal field study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "単一国・職域",
        "自己報告中心"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "probst-2003",
      "design": "measure development",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "尺度項目は再配布しない",
        "文化・雇用制度依存"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "sverke-2002",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "古い研究中心",
        "観察研究主体",
        "効果の異質性"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ferrie-2002",
      "design": "prospective cohort study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "特定職域",
        "自己報告健康",
        "残余交絡"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "cheng-chan-2008",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "観察研究中心",
        "年代・地域差",
        "因果確定ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "staufenbiel-konig-2010",
      "design": "longitudinal field study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "観察研究",
        "測定・文脈依存"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "vander-elst-2014",
      "design": "cross-national validation",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "欧州中心",
        "等値性が普遍性を意味しない",
        "尺度権利確認が必要"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "shoss-2017",
      "design": "integrative review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブ統合",
        "介入効果のレビューではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "lee-2018",
      "design": "annual review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブレビュー",
        "国・制度差"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "jiang-lavaysse-2018",
      "design": "meta-analysis and field study",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "自己報告研究が多い",
        "尺度差",
        "時間順序に限界"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "piccoli-2017",
      "design": "field study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "横断・自己報告部分",
        "単一モデル",
        "一般化制約"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "virtanen-2013",
      "design": "meta-analysis of cohort studies",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "観察コホート",
        "自己報告曝露",
        "因果確定ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "kim-2016",
      "design": "systematic review",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "診断と症状尺度が混在",
        "制度・景気差",
        "出版バイアス"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "jacobson-1993",
      "design": "administrative longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "特定州・時代",
        "制度と景気依存",
        "非金銭影響を含まない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "brand-2008",
      "design": "longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "高年齢層",
        "観察研究",
        "選択・景気交絡"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "sullivan-wachter-2009",
      "design": "administrative longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "男性・長期勤続中心",
        "歴史的米国文脈",
        "機序は確定しない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eliason-storrie-2009",
      "design": "population register study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "国・社会保障制度依存",
        "サブグループ解釈",
        "機序不明"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "couch-placzek-2010",
      "design": "administrative longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "地域・時代依存",
        "平均が分布差を隠す"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "mendolia-2014",
      "design": "household longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "異性愛夫婦中心の歴史的データ",
        "役割規範依存",
        "観察研究"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "brand-2015",
      "design": "integrative review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブ統合",
        "国・制度・景気差",
        "平均効果"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "wanberg-2012",
      "design": "annual review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブレビュー",
        "個人差の説明を責任転嫁にしない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "paul-moser-2009",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "研究の異質性",
        "選択と因果の両方",
        "臨床診断ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "brockner-1987",
      "design": "field and experimental studies",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "古典的研究",
        "特定削減文脈",
        "短期結果"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "brockner-1990",
      "design": "experimental and field studies",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "古典的・短期研究",
        "説明だけで実質的不利益は解消しない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "mishra-spreitzer-1998",
      "design": "conceptual model",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "概念モデル",
        "実証強度は経路ごとに異なる"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "cascio-1997",
      "design": "firm-level longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "企業レベル観察",
        "時代・国依存",
        "削減理由の選択"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "love-nohria-2005",
      "design": "firm-level panel study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "企業レベル",
        "因果選択",
        "従業員福祉を測らない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "trevor-nyberg-2008",
      "design": "organization-level longitudinal study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "組織レベル観察",
        "制度・景気文脈",
        "個人過程を直接測らない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "datta-2010",
      "design": "integrative review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブ統合",
        "研究設計の異質性",
        "公表バイアス"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "oreg-2011",
      "design": "60-year review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "ナラティブレビュー",
        "変革種類の異質性",
        "抵抗を欠陥扱いしない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "rafferty-griffin-2006",
      "design": "longitudinal field study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "特定組織",
        "自己報告",
        "変革結果の異質性"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "nielsen-randall-2013",
      "design": "process evaluation framework",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "方法論枠組み",
        "特定施策の効果証明ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "nielsen-miraglia-2017",
      "design": "realist evaluation framework",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "基礎理論・測定",
      "key_limits": [
        "概念・方法論",
        "直接的レイオフ介入研究ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "cartwright-schoenberg-2006",
      "design": "field review",
      "strength": "基礎理論・測定",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "短い総説",
        "M&A種類・国の異質性"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "stahl-voigt-2008",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "研究の異質性",
        "文化を固定属性化しない",
        "因果複雑"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "lewis-1999",
      "design": "field study",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "特定事例",
        "自己報告",
        "現代デジタル環境以前"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "vinokur-1995",
      "design": "randomized field experiment",
      "strength": "介入・実証研究",
      "directness": "介入・実証研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "歴史的米国制度",
        "参加者選択",
        "現代労働市場への移植に注意"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "liu-2014",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "介入・対象の異質性",
        "就職の質・持続性データが限定",
        "構造的雇用不足を解消しない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "card-2018",
      "design": "meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "政策・国の異質性",
        "選択・公表バイアス",
        "仕事の質を十分測らない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "kluve-2019",
      "design": "systematic review and meta-analysis",
      "strength": "統合研究",
      "directness": "統合研究",
      "key_limits": [
        "若年者限定",
        "短期追跡が多い",
        "非参加者への一般化"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "worldbank-displacement-2021",
      "design": "policy synthesis",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "石炭中心",
        "政策移植には地域診断",
        "拘束力ある法ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-c158",
      "design": "international labour convention",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "批准・国内実施を確認",
        "日本の個別法的助言ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-r166",
      "design": "international recommendation",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "勧告であり条約・国内法と法的地位が異なる"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-c168",
      "design": "international labour convention",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "批准・国内実施・給付要件を確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-c173",
      "design": "international labour convention",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "批准・選択条項・国内制度を確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-just-transition-2015",
      "design": "tripartite policy guidelines",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "非拘束的指針",
        "国・地域別具体化が必要"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-just-transition-2023",
      "design": "tripartite resolution",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "決議であり国内法ではない",
        "実施能力差"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eu-collective-1998",
      "design": "EU directive",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "EU指令",
        "国内法への転置と適用範囲を確認",
        "人数閾値あり"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eu-transfer-2001",
      "design": "EU directive",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "EU指令",
        "移転該当性・例外・国内法を確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eu-insolvency-2008",
      "design": "EU directive",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "EU指令",
        "期間・上限・国内実施を確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eu-egf-2021",
      "design": "EU regulation",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "EU基金",
        "申請・適格性あり",
        "所得保障そのものではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "eu-fair-transition-2022",
      "design": "EU council recommendation",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "勧告であり直接適用法ではない",
        "EU文脈"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "unfccc-paris-2015",
      "design": "international treaty",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "前文の考慮事項",
        "国内での具体的権利は別制度"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "oecd-ai-2023",
      "design": "official policy report",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "予測不確実性",
        "技術進展が速い",
        "国・産業差"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "ilo-genai-2023",
      "design": "global task exposure analysis",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "曝露は実際の導入・失職ではない",
        "データ・技術前提",
        "国・性別差"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "japan-labor-contract",
      "design": "Japanese statute",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "条文・判例・個別事実を専門家と確認",
        "有期契約等は別条項"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "japan-labor-standards",
      "design": "Japanese statute",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "例外・除外・他法令・判例を確認",
        "個別法的助言ではない"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "japan-employment-insurance",
      "design": "Japanese statute",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "現行要件・改正・個別認定を公的窓口で確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "japan-wage-payment",
      "design": "Japanese statute",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "適用・上限・手続・時効を最新資料で確認"
      ]
    },
    {
      "study_id": "japan-labor-policy-act",
      "design": "Japanese statute",
      "strength": "公式指針・制度",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "key_limits": [
        "対象要件・期限・様式は厚生労働省・労働局の最新版を確認",
        "個別法的助言ではない"
      ]
    }
  ]
}