ANALISIS TERHADAP WAKTU KERJA BAGI PEKERJA MINIMARKET CIRCLE K BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 13 TAHUN 2003 DI KOTA YOGYAKARTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circle K is a franchise retail convenience from USA. The first owner Fred Harvey \nbuild Kay’s in Texas at 1951. Few years after, Kay’s have change their name \nbecome Circle K. Before 2003 Circle K have more than 2100 store, in 1996 Circle \nK was take over by Tosco, in 2002 Circle K was take over by Conocco-Philips, \nuntil 2003 the Alimentation Couche-Tard (ACT) the biggest retail convenience \nstore in Canada was take over Circle K. Under the ACT group, Circle K become \nbigger and bigger about 6500 store in USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Macao, \nChina, Hong Kong, and Indonesia. Circle K have many-many worker, in \nYogyakarta. Circle K store have more than 200 worker. But the problems is Circle \nK rules is not match with the Act Number 13 in 2003 about Labour affair, Circle \nK not obey limit of work time. Every stores have 7 worker, every worker have \ntheir own shift. First shift start at 7:00 in the morning until 15:00 in the afternoon, \nsecond shift start at 15:00 until 23:00, and the third start at 23:00 until 07:00. Both \nof shift for every worker have 1 hour rest. Every week, they have one day free but \nnot in the same day for each other. It means that every week they must work 8 \nhours x 6 days same with 48 hours. If we use Act Number 13 in 2003 about \nLabour affair as a basic rules, in one week, the worker must not do activity more \nthan 40 hour’s but Circle K rules that every worker must do work activity until 48 \nhour’s every week. Circle K was not calculates the Over-time work, and that’s a \nmistake. This paper try to find how the Act Number 13 in 2003 about Labour \naffair protect the worker from Over-time rules.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".