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

PANCASILA AS A LEGAL SCIENCE PARADIGM

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

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