MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395093533 · doi:10.29313/bcsls.v4i1.9885

Hubungan Hukum Antara Penerbit dan Pengguna E-Wallet Dana Dihubungkan dengan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata

2024· article· id· W4395093533 on OpenAlexaff
Arina Nurhasanah, Sri Poedjiastuti

Bibliographic record

VenueBandung Conference Series Law Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pemanfaatan teknologi sebagai bentuk kemajuan telah menjadi hal yang umum di masyarakat pada era sekarang. Contohnya adalah penggunaan e-wallet sebagai sarana elektronik untuk menyimpan dan mengelola uang. Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis hubungan hukum antara pengguna dan penerbit e-wallet DANA dengan mengacu pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach), dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) dengan dihubungkan dengan kasus dan peristiwa yang diangkat. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis yang mengkaji berdasarkan sumber data sekunder baik berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang dikumpulkan dengan teknik studi pustaka (library research). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hubungan hukum antara pengguna dan penerbit e-wallet DANA dapat dikategorikan sebagai hubungan kontraktual atau perjanjian baku berdasarkan Pasal 1313 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, perjanjian baku merupakan salah satu bentuk perjanjian tidak bernama yang diatur oleh ketentuan umum yang tercantum pada Buku III. Dalam hubungan ini, pengguna dan penerbit e-wallet DANA terlibat dalam perjanjian di mana pengguna memberikan persetujuan untuk menggunakan layanan yang disediakan secara sepihak oleh penerbit. Penerbit e-wallet DANA bertanggung jawab untuk memberikan ganti rugi atas kerugian yang dialami oleh pengguna, baik itu akibat wanprestasi atau perbuatan melawan hukum. Sebagai pelaku usaha, penerbit e-wallet juga memiliki kewajiban untuk menjaga keamanan produk dan layanan yang ditawarkan, sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Oleh karena itu, penerbit e-wallet DANA berkewajiban memberikan ganti rugi kepada pengguna jika terjadi pelanggaran terhadap kewajiban tersebut. The utilization of technology as a form of progress has become common in society in the present era. One example is the use of e-wallets as an electronic means to store and manage money. This thesis aims to analyze the legal relationship between users and the e-wallet provider DANA by referring to the Civil Code. The research method employed is the statutory approach and the conceptual approach, supported by relevant cases and events. This study is a normative juridical research with a descriptive-analytical specification that examines secondary data sources, including primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, collected through library research techniques. The research findings indicate that the legal relationship between users and the e-wallet provider DANA can be categorized as a contractual relationship or standard agreement based on Article 1313 of the Civil Code. In the Civil Code, a standard agreement is one form of unnamed agreement regulated by general provisions stated in Book III. In this relationship, users and the e-wallet provider DANA are involved in an agreement in which users give consent to use the services unilaterally provided by the provider. The e-wallet provider DANA is responsible for compensating users for losses suffered, whether due to breach of contract or unlawful acts. As a business entity, the e-wallet provider also has an obligation to ensure the security of products and services offered, in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Law No. 8 of 1999. Therefore, the e-wallet provider DANA is obliged to provide compensation to users in case of any violation of these obligations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.274 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBandung Conference Series Law StudiesSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207