Dinamika Multikulturalisme Global tentang Kebebasan Beragama dalam Perspektif Hukum dan Ham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini membahas konsep dan implementasi kebebasan beragama di tiga negara: Indonesia, Kanada, dan Amerika Serikat, dengan menyoroti pendekatan konstitusional, kebijakan, serta perlindungan terhadap minoritas agama. Indonesia menjamin kebebasan beragama melalui Pasal 28E dan 29 UUD 1945 serta menjadikan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa sebagai dasar negara. Namun, dalam praktiknya masih terdapat diskriminasi terhadap kelompok minoritas seperti Ahmadiyah dan konflik bernuansa agama di Tanjung Balai. Kanada mengusung sekularisme akomodatif dengan prinsip multikulturalisme yang diatur dalam Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, memberikan ruang toleransi yang luas, meskipun kebijakan seperti larangan simbol agama di Quebec menuai kritik. Sementara Amerika Serikat menjamin kebebasan beragama secara tegas melalui First Amendment dengan pemisahan antara negara dan agama, namun masih diwarnai diskriminasi sosial terhadap kelompok Muslim dan minoritas lainnya. Studi ini menegaskan bahwa meskipun ketiga negara memiliki komitmen terhadap perlindungan kebebasan beragama, perbedaan pendekatan Indonesia dengan protektif-pluralis, Kanada dengan sekuler-akomodatif, dan Amerika Serikat dengan sekuler-tegas—menciptakan dinamika yang berbeda dalam implementasi hak asasi manusia dan toleransi antarumat beragama.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".