MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381251049 · doi:10.20473/ntr.v6i2.45871

Inter-Religious Marriage: A Comparison Analysis of Indonesian Law With Other Countries

2023· article· en· W4381251049 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotaire · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStipulationStatutory lawLawIndonesianMarriage lawPopulationSociologyDiversity (politics)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractInter-religious marriage is not something new in Indonesia. Judging from the diversity of religions that exist, it does not rule out the possibility of inter-religious marriages. However, inter-religious marriage is still a polemic among the public because the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage, does not explicitly regulate and accommodate the problem of inter-religious marriage, especially after the enactment of Law Number 23 of 2006 concerning Administration Population, the opportunity to legalize inter-religious marriages seems to be wide open, namely with the availability of the option of submitting an application for interfaith marriages to the District Court to issue a stipulation allowing interfaith marriages and instructing Civil Registry office employees to record these interfaith marriages into Register of Marriage Registration. In the end, people often smuggle laws in ways that are not justified, for example by providing false information that they have changed religions and follow the religion of their partners. Or by carrying out marriages abroad which allow marriages of different religions, and then registering them at the civil registry office. This study aims to find out how Indonesian law views inter-religious marriages and how inter-religious marriages are regulated from a comparison of the laws of other countries, such as those in Canada, Singapore, England and the Netherlands. This study uses a statutory approach, namely an approach that is carried out by examining all laws and regulations that are related to the legal issues under study. The results of this study will provide input to Indonesian legislators which can be used as an improvement in regulations, especially provisions related to inter-religious marriage.Keywords: Interfaith Marriage; Reduced Inequalities; Comparative Civil Law; Peace and Justice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.310 · 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