Klausula Baku Pada Perjanjian Berjangka Dan Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Investor Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal protection of customers or investors in the world of commodity futures trading needs to be considered. Many victims of the case of "spoofed investment" who suffered losses with a nominal that is not small. By using the normative juridical method, it is hoped that this research can realize justice and legal certainty in the world of futures trading. This study focuses on the standard clauses on futures agreements and consumer legal protection, in this case customers or investors. Law No. 10 of 2011 in conjunction with Law 32 of 1997 concerning Commodity Futures Trading which aims to ensure legal certainty and protect consumers who carry out futures trading transactions. Likewise with Law no. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. Both laws have the aim of protecting consumers. Before making a transaction, the customer or investor must meet the requirements for customer acceptance, one of which is by signing agreements. The agreement is in the form of a standard contract. The contents of the agreement are made by Bappebti. Therefore, the contents of the agreement have taken into account aspects of consumer protection. As a form of self-protection, customers can find out about brokerage companies through the web www.Bappebti.go.id or come directly to the Bappebti Building Floors 3 – 7 on Jl. Kramat Raya No. 172 Jakarta or CoFTRA's call center at (021) 31924744 and SMS center at 0811-1109-901. Bappebti also provides tips on protecting customers or investors with the “7Ps”. If a problem occurs in the future, the customer or investor can submit a complaint either to the division that serves complaints at the brokerage firm, futures association, and Bappebti. If the problem has not been resolved by deliberation, it will be resolved through the District Court or Commodity Futures Trading Arbitration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.015 |
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".