Evaluation and Strategy: Strengthening Indonesia Council of Representatives of the Regions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Council of Representatives of the Regions emerged through the 1945 Constitution third amendment. The Council of Representatives of the Regions intended to represent regional interests and regional society in the central legislation making processes and products, to perform checks and balances principle on The People’s Representative Council which is a political representation that brings and struggles the aspirations and interests of political parties at the central level. The Council of Representatives of the Regions also acts as a guardian of decentralization and regional autonomy. The most fundamental problem for The Council of Representatives of the Regions is its institutional weaknesses. In legislation weaknesses terms, budgeting, and supervision have affected The Council of Representatives of the Regions in maximizing its performances. The Law regarding Indonesia Legislative Branch does not mandate legislation as The Council of Representatives of the Regions tasks. This provision can not be used as a guideline to describe the scope of duties, which are the limits of their authority in The Council of Representatives of the Regions order. On the other hand, after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 92/PUU-X/2012 and Number 79/PUU-XII/2014 issued, the relations that were later present were the three-party discussion model of The People’s Representative Council-The Council of Representatives of the Regions-President (Tripartite). Based on those facts, this article focuses on the evaluation of 15 years of The Council of Representatives of the Regions establishment and strategy to strengthen it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it