MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385398070 · doi:10.25123/vej.v9i1.5957

PARADIGMA POLITIK HUKUM PENGUPAHAN INDONESIA: STUDI HAK ATAS UPAH LAYAK BAGI BURUH INFORMAL

2023· article· en· W4385398070 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Syahwal Syahwal

Bibliographic record

VenueVeritas et Justitia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIndonesianInformal sectorMinimum wageWageEconomicsConceptualizationSociologyLabour economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In developing countries, including Indonesia, majority of workers are informal with low wages. This situation occurs mainly because of the problems with their status as informal workers and how Indonesian labor law regulates on that matter. On this basis, this research was conducted by investigating labor law policies in the field of wages that do not protect informal workers, i.e., wage policy. There are two issues that are the focus of the study in this research. The first is: what is the paradigm of Indonesian wage policy? Second, what paradigm must be incorporated into wage policy in order to provide informal workers with decent wages? The research was conducted using a non-doctrinal research type supported by statutory and conceptual approaches. The conceptual approach is particularly based on Roscoe Pound’s conceptualization of sociological jurisprudence. The research resulted in the finding that Indonesian wage policy is based on the contractualism paradigm, which is rooted in the idea of neoliberalism and causes informal workers to receive low wages. The study also reveals that there is a need to incorporate a human rights paradigm into Indonesian wage policy so that Indonesian wage policy is able to provide a decent life for informal workers.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeritas et JustitiaSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207