MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1786107216 · doi:10.30652/jih.v5i1.2782

KAJIAN HUKUM DAN HAM TERHADAP PENJATUHAN PIDANA MATI BAGI TERPIDANA NARKOTIKA

2015· article· id· W1786107216 on OpenAlexaff
Ferawati

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Ilmu Hukum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penjatuhan pidana mati sebagaibentuk konsistensi pemerintahIndonesia dalam memerangiperedaran narkotika kembalimenuai perdebatan baik proataupun kontra dari berbagai pihak.Ada sejumlah pihak beranggapanbahwa perumusan pidana matidalam Undang-undang danpelaksanaan pidana mati terhadapterpidana narkotika bertentangandengan Hak Asasi Manusia,khususnya pemenuhan hak untukhidup. Tulisan ini bertujuan untukmengkaji bagaimana ajaran HakAsasi Manusia mengenai hak untukhidup dan menguraikan beberapapandangan yang menganggapperlunya dilakukan penjatuhanpidana mati terhadap terpidananarkotika.Kata Kunci : Pidana mati, Hak Asasi Manusia, Terpidana Narkotika

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Ilmu HukumSame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207