HAK KANAK-KANAK UNTUK DIDENGAR: AMALAN DALAM PROSIDING ḤAḌĀNAH DI MAHKAMAH SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 under United Nation promotes the right of children. Malaysia is among countries that signed and ratified the Convention in 1995. One of the state party’s responsibility is to ensure that domestic laws relating children should fulfill the standard of the Convention. Article 12 of theConvention provides the child’s right to be heard. This provision permits children to express their opinion in any matters including matters in family proceeding. However, in executing the Article 12 in domestic laws is a challenge. State parties such as United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Japan facing this challenge as domestic laws in these countries do not fulfil the Article 12 wholly especially in custody proceeding. While in Malaysia, Section 84(2) of Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984, provides that a child who attained the age of discernment (mumayyiz) may choose to live with his mother or father. Hence, this study attempted to see either the section 84(2) is being practiced or not in the Shariah Court of Federal Territory ofKuala Lumpur. Does it fulfil the standard of the Article 12 that allows every children of discernment age to give opinion before judge? This study applied the qualitative method through library research with reference to books, Islamic Family Law of Federal Territory and selected custody cases between year 2009-2011 atShariah Court of Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The result of this study found that the number of settlement custody cases in not interviewing children of discernment age is much higher,compared to interviewing them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".