The Effectiveness of Gratification Arrangements as Part of Corruption Crimes in Indonesia: A Theoretical Study in Talcott Parsons Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to examine the crime of gratification as part of the criminal act of corruption, which will be seen in Talcott Parson's perspective. Corruption today is a problem for developing countries and has become a world problem that requires integral and transnational handling. One of the most disclosed forms of corruption today is corruption in the form of gratuities. This research method uses normative juridical research with the approach of laws, concepts, and principles and collects primary legal material in the form of Law 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes. The results of this study found that the Cybernetics Theory, which Talcott Parsons coined, views the problem of alleged gratification as being strongly influenced by the economic sub-system, this is because a decision that is made has a significant impact on anyone, so it is not surprising if there is a lot of price bargaining. Moreover, the least impact is the cultural sub-system because this sub-system is only the economic sub-system's impact.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".