MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171643169 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.101

Legal Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers: International Law, National Regulations and Contemporary Problems

2021· article· en· W3171643169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Darminto Hartono, Indranila Kustarini Samsuria

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianGovernment (linguistics)NormativeState (computer science)Migrant workersBusinessLawPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aims to focus on how to conduct an investigation of the regulations for the protections of Indonesian Migrant Workers (IMW) and what efforts are needed by the Indonesian government in addressing the problems for application of regulation. The method uses descriptive research with a qualitative approach through the normative juridical method and data analysis method. With the revised regulation videlicet Law No 18 of 2017, the Indonesian government will not only serve applicant of Indonesian migrant workers but also to their families. Furthermore, it will improve the quality of migrant workers along with protecting and providing safety for their families. The findings showed that Indonesian migrant workers as a legal subject have the rights to be protected and to oblige the requirements which is set by the Indonesian government as sending state and the government of destination state. Legal protection of Indonesian migrant workers in overseas required binding protection which is provided by the state.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207