MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROSPEK PRINSIP FIKTIF POSITIF DALAM MENUNJANG KEMUDAHAN BERUSAHA DI INDONESIA

2018· article· id· W2905667583 on OpenAlex
Enrico Simanjuntak

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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

<p>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 <em>good governance </em>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.</p>

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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