MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005665681 · doi:10.26532/ijlr.v3i2.8055

PANCASILA AS A LEGAL SCIENCE PARADIGM

2019· article· en· W3005665681 on OpenAlexaff
Dini Amalia Fitri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law Reconstruction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Analysis in Indonesia
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceLegal educationCurriculumValue (mathematics)Subject (documents)LawSociologyFrame (networking)Field (mathematics)Political scienceIdentity (music)Paradigm shiftEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyMathematicsLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pancasila legal paradigm is a legal category that is unique to Indonesia, but is universally objective. This jurisprudence is based on God Almighty. This jurisprudence is loaded with the values of Almighty God and other values in the frame of the value of Almighty God. The existence and existence of this legal knowledge for the people of Indonesia is a gift. To change the paradigm of higher education in the field of law, it must start by changing education fundamentally as a dynamic subject of the reality of people's lives so that understanding of law becomes holistic, visionary, and meaningful. One way to elevate Pancasila as the nation's identity and be known by the nations of the world, is by practicing the values contained in the five principles, by synergizing Pancasila values with the legal education curriculum in Indonesia, so that it will produce law graduates who live the values of Pancasila.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law ReconstructionSame topicLegal and Policy Analysis in IndonesiaFrench-language works237,207