MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946058745 · doi:10.18415/ijmmu.v6i2.744

Implementation of Issuance of Substitute Certificate and Legal Implications (Study at the Land Office of North Lombok Regency)

2019· article· en· W2946058745 on OpenAlexaff
Hilman Hilman, Lalu Wira Pria Suhartana

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificateAgency (philosophy)BusinessLand registrationCertificate authorityFinanceAccountingLand tenureGeographyComputer securitySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to find out the implementation of issuance of substitute certificates and legal implications. Factors influencing the issuance of the replacement certificate because the certificate was lost and because the certificate was damaged, and the certificate still used the old certificate and the legal implications of issuing a substitute certificate.The sources of data found in this study are from interviews with the Head of the Land Law Relations Section of the North Lombok National Land Agency Office, the Head of the Land Registration Subsection of the North Lombok Regency National Land Agency and the Ganges Sector Police of North Lombok Regency.The results showed that the issuance of the Substitute Certificate and Legal Implications consisted of three stages, namely, the preparation stage of the applicant, the registration stage, the implementation stage of the certificate of replacement by the Office of the North Lombok National Land Agency. Legal implications arising from the issuance of a replacement certificate in the event of a violation of land rights can carry out prosecution of the violator based on their rights in accordance with Article 32 of Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration that the certificate is a strong and legal certificate. but if there is another party who feels they have the right to the land, then they may submit a written objection to the holder of the certificate and the National Land Agency or submit a complaint to the Court regarding land ownership or issuance of the certificate.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueInternational Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious UnderstandingSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207