MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171108181 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.86

Legal Reformation of Tax Court in Indonesia: Reforming Legal Culture, Institutional and Legislative Aspects

2021· article· en· W3171108181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Budi Ispriyarso, Athasius P. Bayuseno, Harlida Abdul Wahab

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawDirect taxTax reformStatutory lawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is motivated by the many weaknesses that exist in the Ppajak court in Indonesia. Therefore, this research needs to be carried out with the aim that the tax court in the future will be better, more certain in law, and just. The problem is the reason for reforming the tax court in Indonesia and the way to reform the law on the tax court in Indonesia. The research method used is a statutory, historical, and comparative approach. The result of his research is that the tax court in Indonesia must be reformed because it contains many weaknesses. Furthermore, the findings show that tax court reform must be carried out from the aspects of legislation, institutional and legal culture. Based on the statutory aspect, synchronization of laws must be carried out. Based on the institutional aspect, institutional improvement must be carried out. Based on the aspect of legal culture, this must be done by increasing the morale of the parties. The novelty of this research is that the tax dispute settlement model is found after the tax court becomes a special court within the state administrative court. In conclusion, the tax court in Indonesia still contains many weaknesses, so it must be reformed immediately.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207