MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220660983 · doi:10.20473/mi.v5i1.27156

Kewenangan Penerapan Aturan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Asusila Yang Korbannya Anak

2022· article· en· W4220660983 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Rhazi, Iskandar A. Gani, Dahlan Dahlan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia Iuris · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawLegislationHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis study aims to explain the handling of cases of immoral crimes whose victims are children in relation to the determination of the court to try and the authority of the investigation carried out by the National Police Investigators and the Aceh Wilayatul Hisbah Investigators associated with the concept of legal protection. The research method used is juridical empirical. Juridical research is using a statutory approach (dass sollen), while empirical research uses a field/interview approach (dass sein). The results of the study show that in Aceh Province in handling immoral crimes in which the perpetrators and victims are children, 2 (two) laws and regulations are applied, namely Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection and Aceh Qanun Number 6 of 2014 concerning Jinayat Law. Qanun jinayat is a positive law which in its application still requires higher legislation with the aim of being guided by the scope of the judiciary so that the ideal concept can be clearly seen in handling cases related to jinayat law. Meanwhile, the Qanun jinayat is a derivative of Law Number 11 of 2006 concerning the Government of Aceh.Keywords: Aceh; Immoral; Disparity. AbstrakPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan penanganan perkara tindak pidana asusila yang korbannya anak kaitannya dengan penentuan pengadilan yang mengadili dan wewenang penyidikan yang dilakukan oleh Penyidik Polri dan Penyidik Wilayatul Hisbah Aceh dikaitkan dengan konsep perlindungan hukum. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan bersifat yuridis empiris. Penelitian yuridis adalah menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (dass sollen), sedangkan penelitian empiris menggunakan pendekatan lapangan/wawancara (dass sein). Hasil penelitian bahwa di Provinsi Aceh dalam penanganan tindak pidana asusila yang pelaku maupun korbannya anak diterapkan 2 (dua) aturan perundang-undangan yaitu Undang-undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak dan Qanun Aceh Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat. Qanun jinayat merupakan hukum positif yang dalam penerapannya masih memerlukan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi dengan tujuan untuk dipedomani oleh lingkup peradilan sehingga dapat dilihat secara jelas konsep ideal dalam penanganan perkara yang berkaitan dengan hukum jinayat. Sedangkan Qanun jinayat tersebut merupakan turunan dari Undang-undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2006 tentang Pemerintah Aceh.Kata Kunci: Aceh; Asusila; Disparitas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedia IurisSame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207