MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937462864 · doi:10.22437/ujh.1.2.267-294

Kinerja Pengadilan dalam Lingkaran Kekuasaan Otoritarian

2019· article· en· W2937462864 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Isharyanto Isharyanto

Bibliographic record

VenueUndang Jurnal Hukum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentral European UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of PittsburghPrinceton University
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceConstitutionalityLaw and economicsSociologySupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to describe socio-juridically the performance of courts in authoritarian circles of power. The court is increasingly demanded attention by academics of constitutional law, along with the expectation of a role in the presence of power. Courts, of course by involving judicial apparatus, especially judges, are controlled by the executive but are able to negotiate their functions to support the government. Courts can provide legitimacy both internally and externally as well as being an effective tool for maintaining power. On this side, every regime of power has an interest of the court. Therefore, the idealita of the court then also related with independence, which is not only for the rule of law, constitutionality and human rights, but also in relation to globalization, free and efficient economic activities. If the judges are independent, they are basically protected from undue influence from those who can damage their impartiality. With variations that are not the same, but working in the same circle of power, courts in Singapore and Pakistan confirm these matters.
 Abstrak
 Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan secara sosio yuridis kinerja pengadilan dalam lingkaran kekuasaan yang otoritarian. Pengadilan semakin dituntut perhatiannya oleh akademisi hukum tata negara, seiring harapan akan peran di hadapan kekuasaan. Pengadilan, tentu saja dengan melibatkan aparatur peradilan, terutama hakim, dikendalikan eksekutif akan tetapi mampu menempatkan negosiasi fungsi mereka untuk mendukung pemerintah. Pengadilan bisa memberikan legitimasi secara internal maupun eksternal sekaligus menjadi alat efektif untuk mempertahankan kekuasaan. Pada sisi ini, setiap rezim kekuasaan berkepentingan dengan pengadilan. Oleh sebab itu, idealita pengadilan kemudian juga berurusan dengan independensi, yang tidak hanya untuk supremasi hukum, konstitusionalitas, dan hak asasi manusia, tetapi juga dalam kaitannya dengan globalisasi, kegiatan ekonomi yang bebas, dan efisien. Jika hakim independen, mereka pada dasarnya dilindungi dari pengaruh yang tidak semestinya dari pihak-pihak yang dapat merusak ketidakberpihakan mereka. Dengan variasi yang tidak sama, namun bekerja dalam lingkaran kekuasaan yang sama, pengadilan di Singapura dan Pakistan memberikan konfirmasi atas hal-hal tersebut.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndang Jurnal HukumSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207