MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199721155 · doi:10.5539/ass.v17n10p18

Indonesian National Security Policy in Fighting Terrorism Among the Youth Generation

2021· article· en· W3199721155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suharto Ladjide, Pujo Widodo, Resmanto Widodo Putro

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and Radicalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismRadicalizationInjusticeIndonesianPolitical scienceNational securityDisarmamentEconomic growthCriminologySociologyPublic relationsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of the 21st century, Indonesia was marked by terrorist attacks that caused victims, such as the Bali Bombings in 2002. The threat and violence of terrorism cannot be separated from the influence of international terrorist organizations that attack Indonesia through targeted attacks on vulnerable individuals or groups, more specifically the youth generation. The perpetrators of terrorism have taken advantage of the technological network of the online radicalization era. The Industrial Revolution 4.0 has inspired many patterns of human interaction from domestic interactions to global interactions. This study explains various ideas about implementing national security policies in countering terrorism among the youth generation with qualitative methods using literature analysis so that several tactical steps are found to counter terrorism through critical and open education, exemplary, eradicating injustice, transcendence, and international cooperation. An important finding in this study is the importance of the joint commitment of elements of society to implement Indonesia's national security policy through actions that have small dimensions in the school and household environment and large dimensions at the national level.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicIslamic Studies and RadicalismFrench-language works237,207