MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402658144 · doi:10.59059/mandub.v2i2.1195

Analisis Penggunaan Hipnosis Forensik Sebagai Metode Komplementer Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Pada Pemeriksaan Saksi Dalam Proses Penyidikan

2024· article· en· W4402658144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamad Aldi Djafar, Robby Waluyo Amu, Marten Bunga

Bibliographic record

VenueMandub Jurnal Politik Sosial Hukum dan Humaniora · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To find out and analyze the use of forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in proving criminal acts in other countries. To find out and analyze the use of forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in the perspective of proof of criminal acts at the investigative level in IndonesiaThe type of research used is normative juridical. The focus of the normative approach is to find, analyze and then formulate norms for the use of hypnosis. While the focus of the juridical approach is to explain the use of forensic hypnosis in several countries by referring to legal concepts or expert opinions, legal principles or principles and legal sources that apply universally.Whereas forensic hypnosis has been used as a method of examining witnesses in the investigative process in the United States, Canada and Hong Kong where information from the results of forensic hypnosis is used by investigators to search for, collect evidence and strengthen evidence. Meanwhile, de jure court decisions in each country that recognize the use of forensic hypnosis is a source of jurisprudence and legal legitimacy for applying forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in proving criminal offenses at the investigative level in Indonesia. Whereas the use of forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in the perspective of proving a crime at the level of investigation in Indonesia is no different from the method of examining witnesses in the investigation process in general. As a complementary method, it consists of 4 (four) stages namely pre-induction, induction, suggestion and termination where implicitly the use of forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in the investigation process is a manifestation of the investigator's enthusiasm in carrying out other actions according to law.In order to further strengthen and optimize the existence of the use of forensic hypnosis as a method of examining witnesses in the investigative process in Indonesia, it is hoped that the legislature will provide confirmation on the use of forensic hypnosis which must be contained in statutory regulations or in standard procedures.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.302 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueMandub Jurnal Politik Sosial Hukum dan HumanioraSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207