ASPEK HUKUM INTERNASIONAL TERHADAP YURISDIKSI DALAM MENGADILI PELAKU PEMBAJAKAN PESAWAT UDARA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pembajakan pesawat udara merupakan bentuk kejahatan yang tergolong baru, motif yang melatarbelakangi tindakan pembajakan tersebut pun beragam, mulai dari motif ekonomi sampai dengan politik. Masyarakat internasional memandang bahwa tindakan pembajakan tersebut dapat mengancam perdamaian dan keamanan internasional. Dalam rangka melawan kejahatan pembajakan pesawat udara ini, masyarakat internasional membuat berbagai konvensi dari Konvensi Tokyo 1963, Konvensi The Hague 1970, Konvensi Montreal 1971. Oleh karena itu, dilakukan pengkajian mengenai konvensi-konvensi yang terkait dengan tindakan pembajakan pesawat udara ini terutama menyangkut yurisdiksi untuk menghukum pelaku tindakan pembajakan pesawat udara ini. Salah satu bentuk upaya dalam rangka menanggulangi tindakan pembajakan pesawat udara ini adalah dengan cara menetapkan yurisdiksi agar dapat menghukum pelaku tindakan pembajakan pesawat udara. Kata Kunci: pembajakan pesawat, yurisdiksi, tindakan melawan hukum.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.007 |
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".