The Principle of Justice as a Judges' Considerations in the Concept of Third-Party Responsibility Against Cooperative Legal Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research criticizes and analyzes the judges considerations in the Supreme Court Decision Number 250 K / Pdt / 2019 considering third parties’ responsibility related to Audi Et Alteram Partem principle which is part of the principle of justice as fairness. This is normative legal research. Data analysis obtained from library research was carried out in a qualitative way. The data obtained were grouped systematically and then linked to the formulation of the existing problems based on their accuracy value in order to get a clear picture of the discussion. Results showed that the Panel of Judges in Supreme Court Decision Number 250K/Pdt/ 2019 Jo. Decision Number 204/Pdt/2018/PT SMG Jo. Decision Number 20/Pdt.G/2017/ PN Kds has implemented the principle of Audi Et Alteram Partem which is a manifestation of the principle of justice as fairness. The panel of judges has decided fairly by ignoring the concept of cooperatives and the board of directors' responsibilities. Relevant stakeholders must immediately issue the latest law on cooperatives.
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 | 0.042 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".