• Canada
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• Open Access close
• GB close

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/18174/Apr29-1898.pdf?sequence=2

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/19025/Dec26-1874.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/21979/Feb26-1879.pdf?sequence=2

Notaris saat ini diperbolehkan melakukan sertifikasi dokumen elektronik. Kewenangan ini termaktub dalam Pasal 15 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 Tentang Jabatan Notaris. Selain mengesahkan akta, notaris juga dapat menyimpan berkas dalam bentuk file. Namun, tidak sedikit notaris yang masih enggan menggunakan teknologi untuk membuat dan mengesahkan sebuah akta dikarenakan adanya pertentangan antar pasal baik dalam Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris sendiri maupun dengan pasal dalam Undang-Undang lainnya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah akta yang menggunakan teknologi informatika memiliki kekuatan pembuktian layaknya akta autentik dan apakah sertifikasi elektronik yang dilakukan oleh notaris sejalan dengan tugas dan jabatan notaris. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu jenis penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan dengan cara penelaahan bahan pustaka atau data sekunder dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan konseptual. Penelitian ini berfokus pada akta hasil Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa PT. Lippo Karawaci. Tbk yang dilakukan melalui video konferensi pada tanggal 13 Oktober 2021. Adanya ketidaksepakatan dari beberapa pemegang saham atas sertifikasi yang dilakukan secara elektronik karena dinilai dapat membuat akta tersebut menjadi akta di bawah tangan. Selain adanya pertentangan antara pasal, hal ini juga disebabkan tidak adanya peraturan pelaksana terkait pembuatan akta melalui teknologi informasi (Cyber Notary) oleh notaris sehingga perlunya pengkajian ulang terhadap Undang-Undang terkait dan pembuatan peraturan pelaksana khusus cyber notary.

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/21327/May17-1892.pdf?sequence=2

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/22793/May23-1885.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/20490/Dec06-1888.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

The Optical Spectrograph and Infra-Red Imager System (OSIRIS) and the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) have been taking measurements from space since 2001 and 2003, respectively. This paper presents intercomparisons between ozone and NO2 measured by the ACE and OSIRIS satellite instruments and by ground-based instruments at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL), which is located at Eureka, Canada (80° N, 86° W) and is operated by the Canadian Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Change (CANDAC). The ground-based instruments included in this study are four zenith-sky differential optical absorption spectroscopy (DOAS) instruments, one Bruker Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) and four Brewer spectrophotometers. Ozone total columns measured by the DOAS instruments were retrieved using new Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) guidelines and agree to within 3.2%. The DOAS ozone columns agree with the Brewer spectrophotometers with mean relative differences that are smaller than 1.5%. This suggests that for these instruments the new NDACC data guidelines were successful in producing a homogenous and accurate ozone dataset at 80° N. Satellite 14–52 km ozone and 17–40 km NO2 partial columns within 500 km of PEARL were calculated for ACE-FTS Version 2.2 (v2.2) plus updates, ACE-FTS v3.0, ACE-MAESTRO (Measurements of Aerosol Extinction in the Stratosphere and Troposphere Retrieved by Occultation) v1.2 and OSIRIS SaskMART v5.0x ozone and Optimal Estimation v3.0 NO2 data products. The new ACE-FTS v3.0 and the validated ACE-FTS v2.2 partial columns are nearly identical, with mean relative differences of 0.0 ± 0.2% and −0.2 ± 0.1% for v2.2 minus v3.0 ozone and NO2, respectively. Ozone columns were constructed from 14–52 km satellite and 0–14 km ozonesonde partial columns and compared with the ground-based total column measurements. The satellite-plus-sonde measurements agree with the ground-based ozone total columns with mean relative differences of 0.1–7.3%. For NO2, partial columns from 17 km upward were scaled to noon using a photochemical model. Mean relative differences between OSIRIS, ACE-FTS and ground-based NO2 measurements do not exceed 20%. ACE-MAESTRO measures more NO2 than the other instruments, with mean relative differences of 25–52%. Seasonal variation in the differences between NO2 partial columns is observed, suggesting that there are systematic errors in the measurements and/or the photochemical model corrections. For ozone spring-time measurements, additional coincidence criteria based on stratospheric temperature and the location of the polar vortex were found to improve agreement between some of the instruments. For ACE-FTS v2.2 minus Bruker FTIR, the 2007–2009 spring-time mean relative difference improved from −5.0 ± 0.4% to −3.1 ± 0.8% with the dynamical selection criteria. This was the largest improvement, likely because both instruments measure direct sunlight and therefore have well-characterized lines-of-sight compared with scattered sunlight measurements. For NO2, the addition of a ±1° latitude coincidence criterion improved spring-time intercomparison results, likely due to the sharp latitudinal gradient of NO2 during polar sunrise. The differences between satellite and ground-based measurements do not show any obvious trends over the missions, indicating that both the ACE and OSIRIS instruments continue to perform well.

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/16366/Sep10-1900.pdf?sequence=2

For each site (referred to by its SSSI and GCR names) each major and/or significant cave system is inventoried by way of an annotated outline map and appropriate text. Particular attention is paid to the more important and/or extensive groups of calcite speleothems and also the notable sections of undisturbed clastic sediments where known or identified. For both materials, their present state (as of 2001) is noted, but any monitoring exercise will have to start with a more detailed description for reference purposes. Locations of all significant sediments and deposits are indicated on the outline surveys. The scientific value of many caves lies in their passage morphology, as carved into the solid limestone. With rare exceptions, these features are not fragile and are barely impacted from cavers' visits. The main features are identified in this report, but without any attempt or need to detail most of them with reference to any future monitoring. For each site, the overall geological and geomorphological values are outlined only briefly by way of introduction. The reader is referred to Volume 12 of the Geological Conservation Review (Waltham et al., 1997), which contains fully referenced descriptions and evaluations of the geomorphological evolution of the sites. The results of explorations and research since 1997 are summarised in appropriately greater detail. The only references cited are those that post-date 1997 or are not cited in the GCR volume's extensive bibliography. Within nearly all the sites there are many smaller caves and potholes that add collectively to the scientific value of the site. Except for any with special significance, these are not described in detail but are all listed in Table 1 and described in Barrington and Stanton, (1977) and in Limestones and Caves of Wales (Ford, 1989). In particular, many sites are only of archaeological interest, and these are noted in Table 1, but are not dealt with here, as in many cases the entire cave is of interest. Furthermore, many caves contain small patches of undisturbed sediment and odd stalagmite deposits, whose scientific value is hard to quantify. Commonly, a stalagmite deposit may have little aesthetic value (for example if covered in sediment), but its potential scientific value may not be revealed unless a specific study is undertaken. Only some of the caves included in this report have had proper detailed geomorphological surveys, and even these will not have identified or reported all the significant features.