KONSTITUSIONALITAS PROSES PEMILIHAN KEPALA OTORITA IBU KOTA NUSANTARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 3 TAHUN 2022 TENGAN IBU KOTA NEGARA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The establishment of the Government of the Special Territory of the Capital of Nusantara (Special Regional Government of IKN) as the location of the new capital of Indonesia has raised controversy, especially as regards its position as the special regional government held by the Nusantara Capital Authority Institution (IKN Authority), as well as the differences in the process for selecting government heads. The research was conducted using a normative jurisprudence method that focuses on the analysis of secondary data to determine the constitutionality of regulations relating to the position and process of election of the head of government in the Capital of Nusantara. Special Regional Government of IKN is distinct from other regional administrations because it has special status at the provincial level. Several countries grant equivalent status to their national capitals, including the United States, Australia, Canada, and the Czech Republic. In the federal government, it aims to authorize intervene in managing the national capital and ensure that the federal government remains neutral in taking of national policies. In contrast to a unitary state, which has just one sovereign and one legislature, which regional governments must also follow the law ot the state. The specialty of the Special Regional Government of IKN managed by the IKN Authority, as well as the mechanism of election of the Head of the Authority through the appointment mechanism established by the President after consulting the House, is deemed to be contrary to the Constitution. This is due to the fact that the current process does not reflect the regional democratization system, which has become the demand for reform, as stated in the Republic of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution. Aside from that, the applicable laws and regulations cannot guarantee accountability in the execution of each process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".