MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907380869 · doi:10.31227/osf.io/ngj9v

ALASAN-ALASAN DIBALIK DIBATALKANNYA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 27 TAHUN 2004 TENTANG KOMISI KEBENARAN DAN REKONSILIASI DI INDONESIA

2017· preprint· id· W2907380869 on OpenAlexaff
Mochammad Tanzil Multazam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2004 pada bulan Desember tahun 2006 dinyatakan tidak lagi memiliki kekuatan yang mengikat atau dibatalkan oleh putusan majelis hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi. Majelis hakim menilai undang-undang tersebut bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 Amandemen ke IV, tidak memiliki kewenangan yang jelas karena tidak memiliki daya ikat dan tidak memiliki konsistensi hukum sehingga tidak memiliki kepastian hukum. Namun, Apakah yang melatar belakangi Mahkamah Kontitusi dalam menetapkan putusan pembatalan terhadap Undang-undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Kebenaran Dan Rekonsiliasi ?

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)0.002
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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207