BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE: KETENTUAN DAN PELAKSANAANNYA OLEH PENGADILAN DI INGGRIS, KANADA DAN INDONESIA
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis article discusses the provisions of business judgment rule (BJR) in the company law and the application of BJR by the courts in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and Indonesia. In the UK and Canada, the courts have been long examined the appropriateness of directors’ business decisions. Later, BJR was codified into the Canadian Business Corporations Act 2019, meanwhile, duty of care and fiduciary duties were codified into the UK 2006 Companies Law which implicitly regulates BJR. Indonesia adopts BJR in the Company Act 2007 but the courts rarely examine directors’ business decisions and the adoption needs to be rearranged systematically.IntisariArtikel ini membahas bagaimana dan kapan pengadilan menguji aturan penilaian bisnis (APS) dan bagaimana APS diatur dalam hukum perusahaan di Inggris Raya, Kanada, dan Indonesia. Pada pengadilan Inggris dan Kanada yang menganut tradisi hukum kebiasaan, APS telah lama diterapkan untuk menilai keputusan bisnis direktur. Baru-baru ini, APS dikodifikasikan ke dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Bisnis 2019. Sementara itu, tugas direktur untuk peduli dan tugas fidusia juga dikodifikasikan ke dalam Undang-Undang Perusahaan Inggris 2006 yang secara implisit mengatur APS. Indonesia juga mengadopsi APS dalam Undang-Undang PT 2007 tetapi pengadilan jarang menguji keputusan bisnis direktur dan adopsi ini perlu diatur ulang secara lebih sistematis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it