MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015250031 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v3n1p24

Employees’ Rights under the Malaysian Social Security Organisation

2010· article· en· W2015250031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rooshida Merican Binti Abdul Rahim Meric

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompensation (psychology)Social securityPensionBusinessSocial insuranceActuarial scienceSocial Security ActEmployee benefitsLaw and economicsPublic relationsLawFinanceEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses on the remedies available to the injured employees under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (ESSA 1969) (Note 1). Remedies are the means given by the law for the recovery of a right, or of compensation for the infringement thereof (Note 2). Since employees covered by ESSA 1969 are not eligible for workmen’s compensation, they are only eligible for benefits administered by the Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) (Note 3). The relevant issues in this article pertain to the curtailment of the employees’ rights to a claim under SOCSO as once an employee is injured, the employee must know what to do, what are the benefits and remedies available, the laws applicable, how to withdraw the contributions and so on. The article introduces a discussion on ESSA 1969, that is, the purpose of the Act, the requirements for eligibility of the benefits and the contributions. As the object of ESSA 1969 is to provide, through SOCSO, social security to employees and their dependants in the event of injury or death arising in the course of employment under the employment injury insurance scheme and the invalidity pension scheme, the study then examines the two SOCSO’s schemes. This article also discusses the various benefits available under the insurance schemes focusing on benefits that are directly related to employees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207