Kekuatan Mengikat Putusan Hakim dalam Praktik Peradilan Perdata: Studi Yurisprudensi Terpilih
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis kekuatan mengikat putusan hakim dalam praktik peradilan perdata serta memeriksa bagaimana yurisprudensi berperan dalam membentuk dan memengaruhi putusan tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pendekatan kualitatif dengan studi kasus pada beberapa putusan yurisprudensi terpilih yang relevan dalam konteks peradilan perdata di Indonesia. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui analisis dokumen putusan pengadilan serta kajian terhadap literatur terkait. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun putusan hakim dalam peradilan perdata memiliki kekuatan mengikat, pengaruh yurisprudensi dalam praktik peradilan berperan penting dalam meningkatkan konsistensi keputusan serta sebagai pedoman bagi hakim dalam menangani perkara serupa di masa mendatang. Kesimpulannya, meskipun yurisprudensi tidak bersifat mengikat secara eksplisit, namun praktik peradilan perdata menunjukkan bahwa putusan-putusan sebelumnya tetap memiliki pengaruh signifikan dalam pembentukan hukum.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it