MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113176521

Tindak Pidana Penerbangan: Studi Terhadap Penyampaian Informasi Palsu Yang Membahayakan Keselamatan Penerbangan Pada Putusan Nomor 43/PID.B/2018/PN LBJ

2025· other· en· W7113176521 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUMS Library Center of Academic Activities (Universitas Surakarta) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElement (criminal law)Law enforcementLiabilityAviationSubpoenaCriminal lawWitnessParagraphCriminal procedure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aviation safety, which is a vital aspect of air transportation, is now facing a serious threat due to the spread of false information, thus requiring strict law enforcement as regulated in Article 437 of Law Number 1 of 2009, one example of which can be seen through Decision Number 43/Pid.B/2018/PN Lbj. This study aims to analyze criminal liability for the dissemination of false information that endangers aviation safety, as regulated in Article 437 of Law Number 1 of 2009, using the case study of Decision Number 43/Pid.B/2018/PN Lbj as an effort to understand the application of criminal law in addressing the challenges of non-conventional crimes in the air transportation sector. This research uses a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on secondary data in the form of Decision Number 43/Pid.B/2018/PN Lbj and analyzed qualitatively through library research to examine criminal liability for the dissemination of false information that endangers aviation safety. The research results state that the Panel of Judges in the Decision of the Labuan Bajo District Court Number 43/Pid.B/2018/PN Lbj has carefully considered and legally and convincingly proven all elements of the criminal act of disseminating false information that endangers aviation safety, namely the element of “every person” which refers to Article 344 letter e jo. Article 437 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 2009, criminal law doctrines, and expert testimony; the element of “disseminating false information” which is proven through witness testimony, the defendant’s confession, as well as international standards under ICAO Annex 17; and the element of “endangering aviation safety” which is supported by positive legal norms, international security standards, and legal expert doctrines, thereby declaring the defendant MARIA DO ROSARIO DO SANTOS RODRIGUES legally proven guilty.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.009
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUMS Library Center of Academic Activities (Universitas Surakarta)French-language works237,207