Policy Learning of One Data Indonesia for Supporting Data-Driven Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The One Data Indonesia policy, established through Presidential Regulation No. 39 of 2019, is a strategic initiative to support evidence-based decision-making through integrated and accessible data governance. This article explores policy learning in its implementation as a foundation for data-driven policymaking in Indonesia. This research uses a post-positivist paradigm where post-positivism uses theory as a guideline for research and acknowledges that values influence the interpretation of qualitative data. A descriptive qualitative method is used to explore the implementation dynamics of the policy in depth. An event or phenomenon of implementing the One Data Indonesia policy with policy learning theory as an analytical framework through semi-structured interviews and literature studies. The results show that the implementation of One Data Indonesia reflects three forms of policy learning (Howlett et al., 2017): cognitive-technical (improving data quality and interoperability), socio-political (cross-agency coordination), and institutional (strengthening regulations and data-based organisational culture). However, challenges such as sectoral ego, data fragmentation, and capacity constraints remain significant. In conclusion, strengthening the legal framework, data literacy, and interoperability is needed to optimise data-based policies in Indonesia. With an in-depth understanding of the policy learning process, this research provides strategic insights for policymakers in optimising the potential of data as a national strategic asset. Specifically, this study contributes by mapping concrete patterns of policy learning that can be replicated or adapted in future national data governance reforms. Effective implementation is expected to support more targeted and efficient development planning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".