The Rights to Religious Freedom for Adherents Faith in Indonesia: Comparative Study of the Rights to Religious Freedom in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indeed, the dimension of rights that are basic is free to believe in trust; one of the beliefs in Indonesia that is still alive is Towani Tolotang. In connection with the study used a socio-legal study that focuses on descriptive-fundamental and comparative research methods, while the approach used is the historical approach, case approach, and comparison approach. Towani Tolotang's belief which is different from other faiths in Indonesia that are recognized by the state, should have the same right argued on the philosophical basis of the first principle of Pancasila "God Almighty", the constitutional basis of the 1945 Constitution Article 28 "Freedom of belief," and strengthened with Decision of the Constitution Court No. 97/ PUU-XIV /2016. In the Japanese context, there are similarities with Indonesia related to traditional beliefs such as the Shinto that lives to this day, and their existence is protected by the state through the policy that the state does not deal with matters of religion through the Japanese constitution. It is different from Malaysia which does not recognize traditional beliefs, but in the context of the protection of trust, it is regulated in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that unfortunately, besides being Sunni Islam, security is not essential or limited to administrative protection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".