MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155177319 · doi:10.33024/jhm.v6i2.23862

Legal Protection For People With Disabilities In Terms Of Fulfilling The Right To Education In Higher Education (Case Studies Of Aw In Indonesia And Ra In Canada)

2025· article· W7155177319 on OpenAlex
Gatot Sugiharto, Intan Mukti, Gea Salsa Arabella, Hernika Ramadhanty, Firda Maulida, Dwi Arassy Aprillia. RS

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Hukum Malahayati · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsNormativeHigher educationFace (sociological concept)Legal researchField (mathematics)Fundamental rightsRight to education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urgency of this research is because the reality in the field shows that people with disabilities still face various obstacles in accessing higher education, both in terms of infrastructure, policies, and social acceptance. Legal protection must be given to anyone without exception, including people with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are part of a society that has equal rights in various aspects of life, including education, employment, health, and social participation. One of the rights of people with disabilities that is the main issue in this study is the right to education. In this study, the author uses normative juridical legal research methods or literature research. The results of the study show that Regulations in Indonesia and Canada both guarantee the right to education for people with disabilities, but the implementation is different. In Indonesia, Law No. 8 of 2016 and Permendikbud No. 46 of 2014 have regulated the obligations of universities in providing accessibility, but do not have binding technical standards and strong supervisory mechanisms. Meanwhile, Canada has more comprehensive regulations such as the Accessible Canada Act of 2019, which not only establishes rights but also regulates funding, supervision, and sanctions for institutions that do not comply with the rules. In Indonesia, weak technical standards, lack of infrastructure, and lack of funding are the main obstacles to realizing optimal inclusive education. Meanwhile, in Canada, despite more advanced systems, challenges such as uneven distribution of funds and gaps in facilities in remote areas still need to be addressed. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that legal protection for persons with disabilities in fulfilling the right to education in higher education has been regulated both in Indonesia and Canada, but with a different approach. In addition, that although regulations are in place, the main challenge lies in the implementation of policies at the university level. From this conclusion, the author can provide suggestions that there is a need for policy improvements in both countries so that the implementation of inclusive education can really run effectively and evenly for all students with disabilities Keywords: Legal Protection, Disability, Right to Education

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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