Efektivitas Pelaksanaan Tanggung Jawab Notaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notaris merupakan jabatan tertentu yang menjalankan profesi dalam pelayanan hukum kepada masyarakat, perlu mendapatkan perlindungan dan jaminan demi tercapainya kepastian hukum. Pada penlitian fokus studi pada Efektivitas pelaksanan tanggung jawab notaris. Metode penelitian menggunakan yuridis empiris. Hasil Penelitian bahwa Efektivitas Pelaksanaan Tanggung Jawab notaris di Kota Makassar belum berjalan efektiv karena masih banyaknya pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang dilakukan. bentukbentuk pelanggaran hukum yang terjadi dalam pelaksanaan jabatan Notaris dan Profesi Notaris di Kota Makassar antara lain: (1) tidak membacakan akta, (2) tidak tanda tangan di hadapan Notaris, (3) berada di wilayah kerja yang telah ditentukan, (4) plang nama Notaris terpampang akan tetapi kosong, (6) pindah alamat kantor akan tetapi tidak melapor, dan (7) membuat salinan akta tidak sesuai dengan minuta. Notary Public is a certain position that contains the profession in the field of law to the public, needs to get permission and guarantee for the achievement of legal certainty. In the study, the focus of the study was on the effectiveness of carrying out notary responsibilities. The research method uses empirical juridical. The result of the research was the effectiveness of the implementation of the responsibilities of the notary in Makassar had not been effective because there were still many things that had been successfully done. forms of legal transfer that occur in the implementation of the position of Notary and Notary Profession in Makassar, including: (1) not reading the deed, (2) not signing before the Notary, (3) moving in the approved work area, (4) name The notary is displayed but is empty, (6) the office address changes but does not report, and (7) the deed is not in accordance with the minutes
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".