MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265903040 · doi:10.33476/ajl.v4i1.26

KEBIJAKAN PERTANAHAN PEMERINTAH KOLONIAL HINDIA-BELANDA DI BALI

2015· article· en· W2265903040 on OpenAlexaff
Yogi Sumakto

Bibliographic record

VenueADIL Jurnal Hukum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis study examines the process (dynamics) of the development of policies on land tenure during the Dutch colonial period in Bali. The study aims to examine policies on land in the agricultural sector, particularly in relation to the social economic impacts of the colonial administration’s land tenure policies in Balinese villages. Peasants as direct producers who are at the very bottom of a larger social-economic structure find themselves bearing the heaviest impact, while farmers or the elite group of non-producer instead reaps up benefits from a wide variety of mechanisms implemented to withdraw surpluses from peasants.Keywords: peasant, policy, land tenure, Dutch colonial governmentAbstrakTulisan ini mempelajari proses (dinamika) perkembangan kebijakan pengaturan penguasaan tanah pada masa pemerintahan kolonial Hindia-Belanda di Bali. Dalam kajian ini hendak disoroti bagaimanakah kebijakan pertanahan di bidang agraris; khususnya berkenaan dengan implikasi sosial-ekonomi dari kebijakan penguasaan tanah pemerintah kolonial tersebut di pedesaan di Bali. Kaum petani sebagai produsen langsung berada pada bagian terbawah dari struktur sosial-ekonomi yang lebih besar selalu memikul beban yang berat sementara itu petani bukan-produsen atau golongan elit bukan-produsen lainnya selalu memperoleh keuntungan-keuntungan dari berbagai mekanisme penarikan surplus petani.Kata kunci: petani, kebijakan, penguasaan tanah, pemerintah kolonial hindia-belanda

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueADIL Jurnal HukumSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207