MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROSPEK PRINSIP FIKTIF POSITIF DALAM MENUNJANG KEMUDAHAN BERUSAHA DI INDONESIA

2018· article· id· W2905667583 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Enrico Simanjuntak

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Analysis in Indonesia
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Gadjah MadaHamline UniversityUniversity of CambridgeUniversitas IndonesiaYork UniversityUniversitas AirlanggaWorld Bank Group
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prinsip fiktif positif merupakan suatu sarana hukum yang dapat mendukung upaya peningkatan kemudahan berusaha. Tulisan ini akan mendiskusikan lebih lanjut apa sebenarnya prinsip fiktif positif ditinjau dari sudut hukum administrasi, bagaimana peluang dan tantangannya dalam mendukung kemudahan berusaha di Indonesia disamping dalam kerangka perwujudan good governance di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan hukum normatif yang bertumpu kepada penelusuran bahan pustaka atau data sekunder. Dari pengalaman negara-negara lain, penerapan prinsip fiktif positif mampu meminimalisir maladministrasi pelayanan administrasi pemerintahan dan meringkas prosedur hukum yang harus ditempuh dalam pengurusan perizinan untuk memulai dan menjalankan usaha. Dalam konteks Indonesia, konsolidasi hukum dibutuhkan untuk menyesuaikan prinsip fiktif positif dengan berbagai struktur hukum perizinan yang ada, pemaknaan terhadap prinsip fiktif positif harus mampu lebih memperjelas ruang lingkup dan defenisi operasional-normatifnya untuk menghindari bias pemahaman dengan berbagai tindakan hukum administrasi lain yang dapat merugikan warga masyarakat.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum NasionalSame topicLegal and Policy Analysis in IndonesiaFrench-language works237,207