Problems of Disputes/Conflicts over Land Acquisition towards Development for Public Interest in 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
The issue that will be discussed in this paper are problems causing disputes/conflicts over land acquisition toward development for the public interest. To address those problems, document and literature search as well as literature review are employed, including the cases of land acquisition that have occurred to be analyzed descriptively to achieve resolution to the problems. The results showed that land acquisition is closely related to eviction, land purchase, compensation, repressive actions of the apparatus, public reluctance to move from the acquired land, and public refusal towards the form and amount of the compensation. The problems due to land acquisition that provokes disputes/conflicts arise from three sources: a substance (in terms of regulations, or biased meaning of public interest), structure (the roles of officials/institutions related to land acquisition), and public. Regarding the fact that the existence of disputes/conflicts over land acquisition is frequently related to the issue of justice and public welfare, therefore, attention and efforts are practically needed to achieve justice and welfare, especially for those whose lands are acquired without ignoring the aspect of legal certainty as a characteristic of state law.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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