Corruption Culture on Managing Natural Resources: The Case Political Crime “Papa asking Stock of PT. Freeport Indonesia”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is the result criminology study on corruption culture of abusing the office and power involved the political elite and state officials in case of 'papa asking the stock’ related to the extension of mining contract of PT. Freeport Indonesia. This research is based on the concept of corruption culture, criminological theories and views of some economic and political observers. The research findings revealed the existence of corruption culture on political crime agreement scenario in case of “Papa Asking The Stock” that are provoking the extension of concentrates export license, diversion of issues and political lobbying to suppress stock divestment and smelter development. The nature of social structures and socio-cultural situations, responses to social situations and relationships with the perpetrators affecting individuals and groups crime behavior. A previous social culture behavior encourages learning in behavior at the society afterwards. State creates the crime laws to protect and maintain its power. The perpetrators rationalize the criminal act on securing and save their interests. Rationalization of corruption culture on the case of ‘papa asking the stocks’ bring forth the law de-penalization mitigating and generating a verdict not guilty to the perpetrators. Corruption culture identical with crime organized state or state crimes against democracy
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".