Penal and Non-Penal Approaches to the Legal Enforcement of Child Marriage: A Political Analysis of Criminal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is directed to examine the issue of child marriage from the perspective of criminal politics. Criminal political perspective child marriage is a perspective that not only sees the problem of child marriage solely as a matter of criminal law, but also tries to look at the problem of child marriage from a non-legal perspective. By using normative and juridical approach, the results showed that the perspective of politics of criminal law of child marriage is to see the problem of child marriage solely as a matter of criminal law, but also tries to look at the problem of child marriage from a non-legal perspective. The politics of criminal law with a penal approach can be done by using integrative formulation, revision, criminalization, penalization of child marriage, law enforcement against criminal acts related to child marriage, encouraging the making of Regional Regulations, Governor Regulations or Regulations of Regents. On other hand, the non-penal approach is by empowering the role of parents by conducting education, education and self-esteem; empowering the role of religious leaders, community leaders, traditional leaders; family economic empowerment, education empowerment and integral policy models
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".