The Function of the Press Council in Supporting Legal Protection for Journalists to Actualise the Press Freedom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Press Law established in 1999 as one of the main agenda for reform is a step forward in the effort to actualize press freedom, which is one of the important pillars in a democratic country. The Press Law introduces several things that are intended to strengthen press freedom as well as the quality of journalistic works. Among them are the participation of the community in supervising the press and the functions of the Press Council to receive complaints from the community and to establish and enforce the journalistic code of ethics with the press organization. However, until now the efforts to continue criminalization against journalists in Indonesia. Law enforcers still do not have a unified view that is in accordance with the spirit of democracy to realize press freedom in Indonesia. This was mainly driven by the practice of state legislation that sets out other laws, such as the ITE Law and the Pornography Law after the Press Law which contains provisions that open multiple interpretations of the provisions of the Press Law. The role of the Press Council in legal protection for journalists has also not been seen and it is as if it has become a new institution that repressed journalists.
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 | 0.023 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".