Menguji Ketangguhan Realisme: Kritik terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 Pasca Pemilu Serentak 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 following the simultaneous elections of 2019. The object is the correctness of the utilisation of realism as a theory of adjudication by the Court in deciding the constitutionality of Law Number 42 of 2008. It can be concluded that, the Court’s decision is false, i.e. it fails to strengthen presidential in Indonesia, as expected by the Court, according to coattail effect theory. Hence, responding to this failure, this article suggests a caveat that the utilisation of realism should anticipate its fallibility. Therefore, responding to the issue to be more general, this article also suggests a proposal for a constitutional amendment to restructure the judicial review mechanism in accordance with the Canadian model known as, conceptually, judicial review with legislative finality. The recommendation aims to anticipate judicial error in constitutional interpretation as shown by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".