Preventing Authorization Deviation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights to Political Parties in Indonesia through a one Roof Political Judging System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law Number 31 of 2002 regarding Political Parties provides authority to the Minister of Law and Human Rights to register changes in the leadership of political parties was previously intended as a state administrator in the field of law and politics. The problem arises when the authority given in 2002 slowly shifted to become a government tool to obtain the support of political parties which is very dangerous for democracy and parties’ independency. Settlement of political parties’ leadership conflict is an integral part of the registration of political parties’ leadership therefore an ideal dispute settlement model is needed. This paper is the result of a research on the Court judgments in the dispute of political parties’ leadership. Ultimately this paper offers a One Roof Political Judgment Concept where one justice agency is empowered with an overall authority starting from the authority to examine the properness of the political party leadership at the central level and the Official decision regarding changes in the political party’s leadership at the central level by Bawaslu. During all this time the General Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) itself has acted as quasi justice given the authority to adjudicate all issues of the general election involving political parties. Bawaslu itself consist of professionals in the field of general election which are not affiliated to the political parties and controlled by the Election Advisory Board (DKPP). Through this model Political parties, KPU and Bawaslu shall become a sub-sub system of the political justice system in Indonesia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".