The Act on Public Information Disclosure Reformulation: A Comparative Law Study of Indonesia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom of information (FOI), the prominent and integral part of fundamental right according to the 59th UN General Assembly's Resolution, is to embody the ideal and sustaining modern democratic state, open and accountable government institution.Indonesia, as one of the young democratic states, adopted FOI norms in the 1945 Constitution and Act No 14 of 2008 to minimize public rights issues regarding information.This Act governs that some limitations are applied to certain information that is classified as "state secret information".Due to the complex bureaucracy and different perceptions of each public official, these limitations become unclear.Some cases show that certain public officials deliberately hinder citizens' right to their rightful information moreover, the loss of important information regarding the murder of prolific human rights activists.Meanwhile, the implementation of FOI in Canada is already stepping ahead with its Access to Information Act, proven by the fact that Canada is labelled the most transparent country and currently serving as a top performer in open government issues.This paper aims to identify the core problems of the Indonesia FOI Act by comparing it with Canada's Access to Information Act while framing an adoption model that can be implemented in Indonesia.This research is doctrinal research conducted using the comparative method.From the analysis undertaken, Indonesia can be concluded to adopt the clarity and distinctiveness of Canada's FOI Act regarding the information categorizing and apparatus, as well as sustaining the core legal principles of confidentiality in the digital era.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".