MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MENGKRITISI PEMBERLAKUAN TEORI FIKSI HUKUM (Criticising Enactment Of Law Fiction Theory)

2017· article· id· W2594507020 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Marwan Hsb

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dalam sistem pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, masih kita temui adanya pemberlakuan teori fiksi hukum.Dimana semua orang dianggap tahu hukum apabila sudah diundangkan dalam lembaran resmi dan ketidaktahuan seseorang atas hukum atau peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku tidak membebaskan seseorang itu dari tuntutan hukum (igronantia iuris neminem excusat).Hal ini tentu bertentangan dengan nilai-nilai keadilan yang ada di masyarakat.Diperlukan upaya-upaya untuk mengikis keberlakuan teori fiksi hukum ini.Hal inilah yang menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam tulisan ini.Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dan untuk memperoleh data digunakan studi perundang-undangan dan telaah kepustakaan.Dari hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa teori fiksi hukum masih diberlakukan dalam sistem peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Untuk mengikis keberlakuan teori fiksi hukum dapat dilakukan 2 (dua) upaya baik dari pemerintah maupun dari masyarakat, yaitu publikasi oleh lembaga pembentuk peraturan perundang-undangan dan partisipasi aktif dari masyarakat dalam proses pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut.AbstractIn Indonesia, we still find an enactment of law fiction theory in the system of legislation formation. Where everyone is regarded to know the law when it is legislated in the official gazette and one`s ignorance on the law or provisions of legislation do not make one free of prosecution (igronantia iuris neminem excusat). It is against the justice values in the society. It is needed effort to erase its enactment, that is the main problem in this research. It uses normative law method. Collecting data by literature and legislation search. The result of this research shows that Indonesia still enact law fiction theory in legislation system. To efface its efficacy can be conducted 2 (two) attempts, both government and society as well, that is publication by lawmaker or legislator and society participation in the establishment of legislation process.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.031
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penelitian Hukum De JureSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207