MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943061527 · doi:10.33087/wjh.v1i1.18

ANALISIS POTENSI TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DALAM PELAKSANAAN TUGAS DAN JABATAN NOTARIS DAN PEJABAT PEMBUAT AKTA TANAH

2018· article· en· W2943061527 on OpenAlex
Tresya Tresya

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWajah Hukum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeedCommitNonprobability samplingLawLanguage changeNormativeLegal researchPolitical scienceResearch methodField researchSociologyBusinessSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is raining to know and recognize: (1) Any actions that have potential as corruption in the execution of duties and positions of Notary and PPAT (2) the efforts made by Notary and PPAT in preventing their actions to not have the potential to be criminal act of corruption This research is an empirical normative research because in this study the authors combine normative legal research (secondary data) with empirical legal research (primary data obtained from research results in the field). The source of this research is Notary in the working area of Jambi city and academician. The sampling technique used is purposive sampling. The method of analysis used in this study is the method of thinking qualitative analysis and drawing conclusions using inductive thinking methods. The results of this study indicate that potential acts as corrupt offenses in the performance of duties and positions of Notary and Officials of the Deed of Land are contained in Article 2, 3, 5, 10 and Article 12 Sub-Article H of Law Number 20 Year 2001 concerning the amendment of Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. Several articles indicate the potential of Notary and PPAT may be subject to those articles if they commit a criminal act of corruption. In the case of the prevention of his actions so as not to have the potential to act Corruption is to work professionally in accordance with the applicable Law, and Notary Code of Ethics and PPAT.Keywords: Notary Public, PPAT, Corruption

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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