MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385779466 · doi:10.14421/sh.v12i1.2929

Legal Politics of Social Workers Law as an Advocacy Effort of Social Workers

2023· article· en· W4385779466 on OpenAlexaff
Al- Yasir, Muhammad Izzul Haq, Sukron Ma’mun, Fitri Nur Aini Prasetyo

Bibliographic record

VenueSupremasi Hukum Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workLawSocial philosophySocial changeSocial WelfareSocial positionPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the organizer of the realization of social welfare, the state has not been able to optimally overcome social changes, which have an impact on increasing the number and complexity of social welfare problems. With the arguments of humanity and the principle of mutual cooperation, some parties help the government, then are called social workers. To ensure their existence, social worker organizations in Indonesia initiated the formation of the Law on the Social Worker Profession. Law Number 14 of 2019 concerning Social Workers was formed. After the birth of this Law, some questions emerged whether the Law provided solutions to the problems faced by social workers in assisting social welfare, or with this Law, the state would be out of hand and emphasize the resolution of social problems to social workers. This study described the legal political conditions for forming this Law. This study answered the politics of the formation of Law Number 14 of 2019 and the challenges for Social Workers in Indonesia after the birth of the Law. Answering those problems, this study used—statute approach, historical approach, and conceptual approach, strengthened by some literature related to Law and social workers. Besides that, this study also used protection theory to assess the Law. This study also compared some regulations in some countries regarding social workers in some cases. In short, this study found that the strong historical background, the long existence of social workers in Indonesia, and the need for legal protection and certainty have become the reason for establishing Law No. 14, 2019. However, after the birth of the Law, challenges arose for social workers where their actualization was not easy and limited according to their profession and education. In addition, it is alleged that the Law could lead to malpractice because there are no sanctions. While in Australia, and USA, social worker laws give more space for social worker.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupremasi Hukum Jurnal Kajian Ilmu HukumSame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207