MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404613274 · doi:10.24843/ac.2016.v01.i01.p07

Tanggung Jawab Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT) Terhadap Pendaftaran Peralihan Hak Atas Tanah Yang Menjadi Objek Sengketa

2016· article· en· W2404613274 on OpenAlexaff
Ida Ayu Wulan Rismayanthi

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Comitas · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeedLawCertificatePolitical scienceLeaseLegal certaintyDiscretionGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)Land registrationSociologyLand tenureGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Land Deed Official (the PPAT) is a public official who is granted part of the authorities by the State in the implementation of land registration, by making the land certificate as the basis for land registration. The Agrarian Office may turn down the registration of the land rights in the event of any recording in the land registry books of the land rights which become the object of dispute. Based on Article 45 of the Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 that there is a legal ambiguity on the return of the files in the form of certificate, title deed and other related documents. According to Article 55 of the Head of National Land Agency number 1 of 2006, the PPAT is personally responsible for the execution of the task and his/her authority, in every act making. There is no clear arrangement regarding the responsibility of PPAT on the registration of the conveyance of the land which becomes the object of dispute. Such provisions result in legal issues about the legal consequences and the responsibility of PPAT on the registration of the conveyance of the land which becomes the object of dispute The type of research used in this thesis is a normative legal research as the result of the presence of the ambiguity and the vacuum of norms. The legal materials were collected by the techniques of library research and the card system. The descriptive, interpretative and argumentative theories as well as associated with laws that relevant to the issues were used to analyze the legal materials. The results showed that the Agrarian Office turns down and returns the documents to the PPAT as the legal consequence of the conveyance of land which becomes the object of dispute. The legal consequences of the deed made ??before the PPAT remains authentic during a blocking of certificate. The responsibility of the PPAT is in accordance with his/her position, in keeping the deed, certificate along with the relevant documents at the time of the restitution by the Agrarian Office. PPAT shall be mandatory as an intermediary to keep the documents that are being returned at the time of confiscation by a court or at the revocation of blocking by the applicant.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ComitasSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207