Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from analyzing, this research aims to know whether the concept of Jalur Khusus (Plea Bargaining) in settlement of criminal cases matches the legality Principle. Moreover, the research aimed to analyze how the legal arrangement of Jalur Khusus (Plea Bargaining) is in criminal procedural law in future. The used research method is normative legal research that focuses on exploring whether the concept of Jalur Khusus (Plea Bargaining) in settlement of criminal cases matches the legality. The second focus is to explore how the legal arrangement of Jalur Khusus (Plea Bargaining) is in criminal procedural law for the future. This research uses the approach of legislation (Statute Approach), primarily Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure code, along with all its implementing regulations and other relevant legislation, conceptual approach (Conceptual Approach), especially about the special pathways (Plea Bargaining), and comparative approach (Comparative Approach) specifically the arrangement of plea bargaining in other countries such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Georgia, Poland and Italy. The research results, namely the Jalur Khusus (Plea Bargaining) concept in settlement of criminal cases, are not appropriate or contrary to the Legality Principle. The reason is the system of proof, and formal truth will be hindered. According to an article in 3 KUHAP, it is already explicitly mentioned that the judiciary is carried out in the way stipulated in the law a quo. The legal arrangement of the concept of "Jalur Khusus" in the Criminal Procedural Law for the future in accordance with the context of the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Also, following the Principle of simple justice quickly and lightly costs are clarifying the negotiating parties in a special line, things negotiated in a special line, adding regulation of stages in a special path, criminal acts that can use special channels, and the form of agreement and binding power in jalur khusus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".