MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888471249 · doi:10.20884/jih.v4i2.113

EFEKTIFITAS JAKSA PENGACARA NEGARA DALAM UPAYA PEMULIHAN KEUANGAN NEGARA/DAERAH SEBAGAI AKIBAT TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI KEJAKSAAN NEGERI PURWOKERTO

2018· article· en· W6888471249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeState (computer science)Quarter (Canadian coin)Action (physics)State owned

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<em>Based on the result of the research and a discussion to the main problem that proposed, therefore we can make some conclusion:</em><em> </em><em>The effectivity of State attorney On The Refund of State/Region Monetary Due To Corruption Act In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto, which purpose is to return the loss of state fund or state economy due to corruption act, if we review it from the effectivity of State attorney as one of the state instrument to return the state/region economy </em><em>as a result of corruption act by using UU No 3 Tahun 1971 about </em><em>Eradication of Corruption Act</em><em> </em><em>In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto</em><em>, we can say that it hasn’t effective yet, </em><em>due to Litigation process handled by State attorney which filed civil action to the District Court, no one is capable to pay the loss of state/region due to corruption act in civil ruling, because the defendent already has no possession. Then, on Non Litigation way, using State attorney</em><em> instrument</em><em>, a little bit effective even though has to pay replacement money by credit because the defend</em><em>a</em><em>n</em><em>t</em><em> is capable to pay off the replacement. If we use UU No 31 Tahun 1999 that has been changed and replaced to UU No 20 Tahun 2001 about the Changes </em><em>on UU No 31 Tahun 1999 about Erradication of Corruption Act to a State Attorney, it won’t be a problem because if the defendant is not capable of paying the replacement money based on the decision, the defendant will undergo the subsidiary criminal in the form of penalty, which is the period of time will not exceed the main criminal threat dan the period of time has already decided on the decision.</em> <em>That factors become obstacles, is the State Attorney will not able to perform a sequest sizing because the defendant is unable and has no possession in a nominal of money being corrupted, then from the Law enforcer itself, that the State Attorney is having difficulties to track posession that belongs to the defendant which is gain from the corruption act or assume gained from the corruption act, while the obstacles from the society, there is a lack of awareness from the society itself, which is a lack of concern to give information earlier and detail on the possession belong to the defendant to the law enforcer to a person a suspected as a corruption perpetrators.</em>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207