MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966332197 · doi:10.30996/jhmo.v2i2.2502

PERLINDUNGAN TERTANGGUNG PADA ASURANSI JIWA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NO. 40 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG PERASURANSIAN

2019· article· id· W2966332197 on OpenAlexaff
Nur Aisyah Savitri

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Hukum Magnum Opus · 2019
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pada umumnya asuransi makin lama makin diminati oleh dan masyarakat umum , hampir setiap risiko transaksi menggunakan jasa asuransi telah menjadi kebutuhan hidup sebagaian masayarakat Indonesia, keyakinan orang-orang dengan Perusahaan Asuransi berkembang sangat cepat dan tersebar dari besar total jumlah uang yang sudah ditetapkan Perusahaan Asuransi berhasil dikumpulkan pada Perusahaan Asuransi. Maka sebab itu keyakinan masyarakat pada Perusahaan Asuransi harus didukung dengan revisi program kerja Perusahaan Asuransi. KUH Perdata, KUH Dagang, dan dan Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 1992 mengenai Bisnis Pertanggungan sebagaimana sudah di rubah dengan Aturan-aturan No. 40 Tahun 2014 mengenai Usaha Pertanggungan, telah menyalurkan bantuan hokum untuk melindungi nasabah atau tertanggung asuransi. Nasabah atau orang yang mendaftarkan dirinya pada asuransi jiwa menjadi orang yang mengkomitemenkan diri dengan Perusahaan Asuransi melalui surat atau akta perjanjian asuransi jiwa memiliki bantuan perlindungan hukum di bagai macam aturan peraturan undang-undang contohnya pada UndangUndang No. 21 Tahun 2011 mengenai Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2014 mengenai Perasuransian, juga pada Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan No. 1/POJK.07/2013 tentang melindungi pembeli Sektor Jasa Keuangan. Mengingat tertanggung atau nasabah polis asuransi pada dasar umumnya berperilaku satu orang atau individual dan banyak yang kondisi keuangan masyarakat yang masih rentan dihadapkan dengan Perusahaan Asuransi, sehingga total jumlah aturan undang-undangan itu lebih meletakan perhatian dan bantuan melindungi hukum kepada nasabah asuransi dari kejadian (evenemen) atau peristiwa merusak pelanggaran hukum oleh Perusahaan Asuransi.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.006

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Hukum Magnum OpusSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207