Concept Legal Culture of the Volkgeist-Based Customary Land Rights Conflict Resolution of the Dayak Tomun Community in Central Kalimantan Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The doctrine of the rule of law provides an opportunity for business actors to exploit the natural resources of the customary forest ecosystem or land of the Dayak Tomun indigenous peoples in Central Kalimantan. The clash between das sollen (supposedly) and das sein (reality) shows how the law is always the instrument of power by the authorities. This study aims to explore the concept of legal culture in resolving volkgeist-based Dayak Tomun customary land rights conflicts sourced from the human nature, which is always interpreted as a correlation between ratio (mindset), behavior, value and rule of law implemented over generations in people's lives. This study uses a mixed research method consisting of normative, empirical, and legal anthropological approaches. The constructive offer of the concept of legal culture has a way of life in the form of norms of rules in terms of customary land rights conflict resolution originating from beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. The concept of legal culture in Halang Lintang is to preserve the legal inheritance, which is used as a cultural foundation and local wisdom to have a legal system, legal process, and the substance of implementing the law as a social control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".