Health Protection as a Citizen's Constitutional Right Through a Constitutional Court Decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To find out the policies in fulfilling human rights related to health that are adhered to by everyone in Indonesia, both since the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through the Constitutional Court Decision. Theoretical framework: Human Rights (HAM) were ratified starting in 1948. Every human being in Indonesia must get their right to health. The most important means of achieving this goal are national, legal, and political policies, especially laws. Method/design/approach: The methodology used is normative legal research using a qualitative approach. This study examines the fundamental right to health protection guaranteed by the Constitution, which the government must uphold for its citizens. Results and conclusion: The findings of this study show how the decisions of the Constitutional Court can protect and fulfill human rights in the health sector while ensuring that various statutory provisions made by the DPR and the President guarantee the protection of citizens' rights. Research implications: If the government makes a wrong policy in protecting the community. So, the government has violated human rights. This problem will result in an attitude of protest by the public in general so that the importance of a decision through the Constitutional Court Decision. Originality/value: The government has a significant role in making policies to protect its people. Because every human being in Indonesia has human rights regulated by the laws of the Republic of Indonesia.
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 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".