MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201478356 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.339

Conflict of Law Enforcement by State Institutions over Abuse of Power and Authority: A Case Study of "Former President Director of PT. Pertamina"

2022· article· en· W3201478356 on OpenAlex
Indah Harlina, Bambang Slamet Riyadi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawImprisonmentSupreme courtPolitical scienceLaw enforcementState (computer science)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study, wants to analyze the very significant differences in the application of legal considerations on the abuse of power and authority by the former President Director of PT. Pertamina, which caused losses to the state based on legal considerations by the Corruption Court Judge and the Jakarta High Court, decided to imprisonment for 8 years and a fine. However, a cassation decision by the Panel of Judges at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia stated that the defendant was presumed innocent and freed the defendant from the demands of imprisonment and unconditional release. The problem of this research is, Why are there very significant differences in the application of law in the same state institution? The purpose of this study, for Constitutional Law academics can provide a very significant difference study in legal considerations in the Court of Justice in Indonesia. For judges at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia as an introspection in the legal consideration of abuse of power that results in losses to the state. This research approach method was a qualitative method. Creswell defines a qualitative method as a research method that is based on the perspective of constructivism, in which various meanings are socially and historically constructed with a view to develop a theory or pattern. The researcher analysis was based on legal regulations where conflicts occurred in the law enforcement among the three state institutions acting as the basis of constitutional law, which were; Jakarta Corruption Court; High Court of Appeals for the Special Capital Region of Jakarta; and Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.The results of the research show real evidence, the application of law, abuse of power and authority in state-owned enterprises, which was carried out by the former President Director of PT Pertamina so that the state suffered losses. At the Corruption Crime Court and the Jakarta High Court apply the Corruption Crime Law, but the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia applies business law. In terms of this significant difference, it has resulted in constitutional law academics assessing decisions that do not reflect a sense of justice. The researcher's suggestion is that the panel of judges in a state institution should have no differences in taking legal considerations on abuse of power and authority that harm 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.370
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