MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400465769 · doi:10.33884/jck.v10i2.6460

KASUS PENYELESAIAN BATAS LAUT ANTARA INDONESIA DAN MALAYSIA

2022· article· id· W4400465769 on OpenAlex
Lenny Husna, Elsa Maria, Selpiana Br Nababan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Cahaya Keadilan · 2022
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subyek konflik Sipadan dan Ligitan dibawa ke Mahkamah Internasional pada tahun 1998, dan pada hari Selasa, 17 Desember 2002, ICJ menyampaikan putusan tentang masalah sengketa Sipadan-Ligatan antara Indonesia dan Malaysia. Akibatnya, Malaysia memperoleh 16 suara dalam pemungutan suara lembaga tersebut, sedangkan hanya satu hakim yang memilih Indonesia. 15 dari 17 hakim adalah hakim tetap MI, dengan satu orang Malaysia dan satu orang Indonesia di antaranya. Akibatnya, Malaysia harus diperhitungkan (Tanpa memutuskan masalah wilayah perairan dan batas laut), Kerajaan Inggris (Malaysia kolonial) telah mengambil upaya administratif yang nyata, seperti mengeluarkan peraturan untuk melestarikan burung yang terancam punah dan mengenakan pungutan penyu. Sejak tahun 1930, pengumpulan telur telah berlangsung, dan mercusuar telah beroperasi sejak tahun 1960-an. Sementara itu, operasional pariwisata Malaysia terabaikan, begitu pula penyangkalan yang didasarkan pada chain of title (suite milik Sultan Sulu), yang gagal membangun perbatasan maritim antara Malaysia dan Indonesia di Selat Makassar.

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 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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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