Discretion of Power of the Indonesian National Police Impacts the Abuse of Power in the Case of Letter Forgery of Red Notice "Fugitive Djoko Tjandra"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was a case study presenting a red notice that was suspected of being false against fugitive Djoko Tjandra by two police generals at the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia. This was a case study research and the research approach method was qualitative. Creswell defines the qualitative method as a research method based on a constructive perspective, that is various meanings; meanings that are constructed socially and historically to develop a theory or pattern. The researchers collected and developed open data, intending to develop themes from the data obtained. The results of the study, based on the exposure to the case analysis, it is suspected that there has been an abuse of power against the power and authority of the state institution of the Indonesian National Police. The researchers suggested that it is better if the legislators of the laws and regulations of the Police of the Republic of Indonesia think about it whether operational accountability is appropriate to the executive of the President of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, there is a check and balance of law enforcement behavior carried out by the police.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".