IMPLEMENTASI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION KUOTA PEREMPUAN DALAM PARTAI POLITIK DAN LEMBAGA PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DAERAH (Studi di Wilayah Kota Malang)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2009 legislative general election, there were 793 definitive candidates, consisting of 528 men and 265 women. Therefore, the average percentage of definitive female candidates from the whole parties was 33% and in general it seems that the percentage was above 30%. But, an affirmative action as stated on the law on the election of the house of representative members in Malang city in 2009 was not reached, since the number of the elected female legislative representative was still under quota of 30%. Factors causing such less optimum affirmative action in political parties and the house of representative in Malang city are as follows: (1) the political context dominated by men so that the women’s interest was less accommodated. (2) the social context dominated by men so this resulted in masculine practices and (3) the cultural context dominated by a patriarchal tradition resulting a social construction on the division of men and women, and the legal factor through the decision of the constitutional court that did not condition the legislative candidates based on the highest voters, instead of the number order. Kata Kunci: affirmative action, perempuan, partai politik, lembaga perwakilan rakyat daerah
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".