The Position of Judges in the Indonesian Legal Idea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Judges are state judicial officials authorized by law to adjudicate. The role of judges is very important in the judicial order in Indonesia. Purpose. As we know, the Indonesian government system adheres to the trias politica, namely the legislative body as the legislator in this case the DPR, the executive body, namely the government and its cabinet and finally the judicial body, namely the judiciary. Method. The writing of this article cannot be separated from the name of the research method, because in scientific writing the method is a necessity which is the perfect and effective condition of a research result Results. In addition to the government system, the Indonesian legal system is known to follow the European-Continental legal system where the law will be based on the law or what is known as "law in book". Legal issues that are increasingly complex corner the enforcers of justice (read judges) are hit by many problems that are often not found in the law. Judges who must decide based on the law and on the other hand they cannot be absent from their profession in adjudicating, however they must decide for the sake of justice and human truth. Conclusion. In this article, the author seeks to explain the position of judges in finding law by writing articles using a qualitative and normative (doctrinal) approach as a type of research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".