MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409957938 · doi:10.37676/mude.v4i2.8273

Penerapan Pidana Tambahan Dalam Kuhp Baru: Kebiri Kimia Dan Publikasi Identitas Pelaku Percabulan Anak

2025· article· en· W4409957938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angelica Suciara, Bryan Idias, Tasya Amira Frananda Siregar, Tri Widyasto Prabowo

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Multidisiplin Dehasen (MUDE) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaruTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several countries have implemented policies of chemical castration and the publication of the identities of child sex offenders as preventive measures and to protect the public. Chemical castration is applied in countries such as the United States, although its implementation varies depending on the laws of each individual state. In Poland, chemical castration is mandatory for offenders who have committed sexual crimes against children under the age of 15. South Korea also enforces a similar policy for offenders targeting children under the age of 16. Meanwhile, in Russia, chemical castration is carried out on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, the publication of offenders’ identities is also a form of additional punishment adopted in several countries. The United States has a Sex Offender Registry system that allows the public to access information about individuals convicted of sexual offenses. The United Kingdom applies the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, which permits authorities to disclose the identity of offenders to parents or concerned parties. Canada also allows the publication of offender identities for those considered high-risk, aiming to increase public awareness and vigilance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.007

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Multidisiplin Dehasen (MUDE)Same topicLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207