Analisis Sengketa Konsumen Dalam Pembelian Rumah Pada Pt Varindo Lombok Inti (Studi Kasus Putusan No 40 Pk/Pdt.sus-Bpsk/2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana terjadinya sengketa antara konsumen dengan PT Varindo Lombok Inti, bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa antara konsumen dengan PT Varindo Lombok Inti dan kesesuaian putusan pengadilan di tiap lembaga peradilan dengan hukum yang berlaku. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitan dapat disimpulkan bahwa sengketa terjadi disebabkan oleh kerusakan rumah akibat terjadinya gempa bumi dan konsumen merasa PT Varindo membangun rumah yang tidak sesuai spesifikasi. Proses penyelesaian sengketa dilakukan melalui BPSK Kota Mataram, dilanjutkan dengan keberatan di Pengadilan Negeri Mataram, kemudian berlanjut dengan Kasasi di Mahkamah Agung, dan berakhir dengan Peninjauan Kembali di Mahkamah Agung. Kemudian untuk ketepatan putusan dengan hukum yang berlaku bahwa putusan yang dihasilkan di BPSK Kota Mataram dan Pengadilan Negeri Mataram dapat dikatakan tidak sesuai dengan hukum yang berlaku. Dan untuk putusan yang dihasilkan pada proses Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali di Mahkamah Agung dapat dikatakan telah sesuai dengan hukum yang berlaku.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".