Legal Reconstruction of State Institutionalities of State Commissions to Suppress the Potential of Institutional Authority Dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main problem of this research triggers by the fact that Indonesia fundamental constitutional system changed into the 1945 Constitution. The changes affected the structure and structural mechanism of state institutions. The main purpose of this study is to analyze the philosophical question of the basic root formed in the 1945 Constitution as a new constitution of Indonesia. Regarding the organization and institution of the state can be started by questioning the essence of power that is institutionalized or organized into the state. The results showed that it is also important to know how the principle of popular sovereignty is reflected in the structure and mechanisms of state and government institutions that guarantee the establishment of the legal system and the functioning of the democratic system. At the theory level in terms of state institutions, with the various state commissions, how the principle of popular sovereignty is organized into institutional functions can be patterned into state institutions that are equal and mutually balanced in forms of checks and balances. From a normative perspective, the sources of state institutional authority can be used as a reference in the structuring of state institutions by considering shifts and the development of state administration, especially with the state commissions that occurred after changes to the 1945 Constitution.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".