MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808324029 · doi:10.38011/jhli.v1i1.10

ULASAN PERUNDANG – UNDANGAN “Potensi Undang-undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 dalam Mendukung Penerapan Demokrasi Lingkungan”

2014· article· id· W2808324029 on OpenAlexaff
Lakso Anindito

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsNetwork for Business Sustainability
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceLaw enforcementLawEnforcementPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstrakTulisan ini akan membahas potensi UU Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Perusakan Hutan (UU P3H) dalam mendukung penegakan demokrasi lingkungan. Untuk mempertajam pembahasan, fokus kajian akan dilakukan dari dua aspek, yaitu: 1) Perangkat yang dapat didayagunakan untuk mendukung penegakan hukum yang efektif sehingga dapat melindungi hak mendasar warga negara; dan 2) Peran aktif masyarakat dalam penegakan hukum. Kedua aspek tersebut dirasa penting untuk mewujudkan nilai-nilai mendasar dari demokrasi lingkungan yang didasarkan peran aktif masyarakat dalam pengambilan keputusan terkait kebijakan penegakan hukum2 dan penerapan penegakan hukum yang adil, akuntabel dan efektif dalam rangka menjaga serta melindungi hak masyarakat atas pemanfaatan sumber daya alam.AbstractThis article will discuss the potential of Law No. 18 of 2013 regarding Prevention and Eradication of Forest Degradation in supporting implementation of environmental democracy. To sharpen the analysis, the focus of study will be conducted from two aspects, namely: 1) The tools that can be utilized to support effective law enforcement in order to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, and 2) The active role of people in law enforcement. Both aspects are considered important to realize the fundamental values of a democratic environment based on active role in decisions related to policy enforcement and application of the rule of law that is fair, accountable and effective in order to maintain and protect the people's right to use natural resources.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Hukum Lingkungan IndonesiaSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207