Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dalam sistem pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, masih kita temui adanya pemberlakuan teori fiksi hukum.Dimana semua orang dianggap tahu hukum apabila sudah diundangkan dalam lembaran resmi dan ketidaktahuan seseorang atas hukum atau peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku tidak membebaskan seseorang itu dari tuntutan hukum (igronantia iuris neminem excusat).Hal ini tentu bertentangan dengan nilai-nilai keadilan yang ada di masyarakat.Diperlukan upaya-upaya untuk mengikis keberlakuan teori fiksi hukum ini.Hal inilah yang menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam tulisan ini.Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dan untuk memperoleh data digunakan studi perundang-undangan dan telaah kepustakaan.Dari hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa teori fiksi hukum masih diberlakukan dalam sistem peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Untuk mengikis keberlakuan teori fiksi hukum dapat dilakukan 2 (dua) upaya baik dari pemerintah maupun dari masyarakat, yaitu publikasi oleh lembaga pembentuk peraturan perundang-undangan dan partisipasi aktif dari masyarakat dalam proses pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".