PENETAPAN WALI HAKIM DALAM PERKAWINAN (Studi Di KUA Karanganyar Kabupaten Karanganyar)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents assume the absence of a guardian can switch to anyone without regard to the rules. Meanwhile, the practice in the KUA area of Karanganyar District in the selection of guardians is carried out based on the order of marriage guardians. The execution of marriage uses a guardian judge if the guardian is a non-muslim, the guardian of the nasab is unknown (mafqud), the child of a mother and runs out of the guardian of the nasab. In appointing a guardian the judge is not necessarily to the head of the KUA, but rather gives precedence to the wali aqrab to the wali ab'ad. This is done in order to preserve the honor of the parents who take care of him. Even so, the transfer of the guardian of the nasab to the guardian of the judge already has provisions, therefore the purpose of this article is to find out the determination of the guardian of the judge in the marriage and the role of the guardian of the judge in the implementation of the marriage. The primary data source is the result of interviews with the Head of KUA and 9 married couples, supported by secondary data. The result of his research is that the determination of the guardian of the judge is carried out based on the consideration of the applicable law in Indonesia. The Office of Religious Affairs determines a marriage in terms of Islamic law and positive law. It's just that it's related to the reason that the guardians of most guardians of judges apply positive law. Therefore, the legal basis used in determining marriage is KHI and PERMA RI Number 30 of 2005.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it