MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414717160 · doi:10.59841/ignite.v2i3.1758

Sertipikat Tanah VS Sertifikat Tanah: Analisis Data Penggunaan Istilah Produk Hukum di Media Sosial

2024· article· en· W4414717160 on OpenAlexaff
Ridho Darman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Islamic Global Network for Information Technology and Entrepreneurship · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaGovernment (linguistics)Open governmentChristian ministryProduct (mathematics)Big data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The land title (in Indonesian: sertipikat) is a legal product issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, while “sertifikat” (spelled with 'f' instead of 'p'), which is the standard term according to KBBI (Indonesian Dictionary). The number of social media users increases every year, resulting in a growing amount of data generated. Big data derived from social media can encompass public perception or societal behaviors. The significant benefits derived from social media analytics provide opportunities to explore and analyze data sources within social media. This study analyzes data from the social media platforms Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to determine common terms used by the public regarding "sertipikat tanah" (land certificate) and "sertifikat tanah" (land certificate). These platforms were chosen because they provide open data. The use of uncommon terms among the public potentially hinders the government's intended objectives. The final results indicate that despite "sertipikat" being the official legal term, the public is more accustomed to using "sertifikat tanah." The comparison of usage between "sertipikat tanah" and "sertifikat tanah" on Facebook is 11% : 89%, on Instagram 38% : 62%, and on Twitter 70% : 30%, with the majority of "sertipikat tanah" usage on Twitter originating from government accounts.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 venueJournal Islamic Global Network for Information Technology and EntrepreneurshipSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207