MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944345695 · doi:10.23887/jkh.v2i1.7280

PERLINDUNGAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA SECARA INDIVIDUAL OLEH DEWAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA PBB SUATU TINJAUAN TERHADAP TAHANAN RUMAH AUNG SAN SUU KYI

2016· article· id· W2944345695 on OpenAlexaff
I Gusti Ayu Apsari Hadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Munculnya era baru Dewan HAM sebagai pengganti dari Komisi HAM PBB memiliki fungsi pokok ialah sebagai pengawas yang membongkar kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM di muka bumi. Salah satu peran Dewan HAM PBB yang dibentuk sejak tahun 2006 ialah menjamin HAM secara individu terhadap tahanan rumah Aung San Suu Kyi, seorang tokoh pro-demokrasi di Myanmar.Penahanan dan pelanggaran HAM yang terjadi pada Suu Kyi telah melanggar pasal 9, 10, dan 19 UDHR, yakni bahwa seseorang berhak atas kebebasan untuk mengemukakan pendapat, larangan atas penangkapan sewenang-wenang hingga memiliki hak atas pengadilan yang adil dalam pasal 10. Sedangkan dalam ICCPR juga terdapat ketentuan mengenai pelanggaran yang dilakukan Myanmar terhadap Aung San Suu Kyi pada pasal 9 angka (1) tentang penahanan sewenang-wenang.Melalui mekanisme Universal Periodic Review Dewan HAM, UPR 10th di Geneva, 24 Januari – 4 Februari 2011 par. 29 menyatakan agar pemerintah Myanmar segera membebaskan Aung San Suu Kyi dari tahanan rumahnya.Hal tersebut mengisyaratkan bahwa negara-negara tidak lagi dapat berlindung di balik kedaulatan teritorialnya atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang terjadi di wilayah negaranya, termasuk Myanmar. Kata Kunci : Hak Asasi Manusia, Individu, Dewan HAM PBB, Aung San Suu Kyi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH)Same topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207