MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532658188 · doi:10.12962/j23373539.v2i3.5181

Analisis Pengurangan Emisi CO2 Melalui Manajemen Penggunaan Listrik dan Ketersediaan Ruang Terbuka Hijau di Gedung Perkantoran Pemerintah Kota Surabaya

2013· article· id· W1532658188 on OpenAlexaff
Widhi Asta Kartika Pratiwi, Joni Hermana

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknik ITS · 2013
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWaste Management and Recycling
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penggunaan listrik pada aktivitas dalam gedung dapat menyumbang emisi gas rumah kaca khususnya CO2. Pada penelitian ini dikaji pengurangan emisi CO2 melalui manajemen penggunaan listrik dan ketersediaan ruang terbuka hijau (RTH) di Gedung Jimerto Pemerintah Kota Surabaya. Sampling penggunaan listrik dilakukan dengan mengukur penerangan indoor, penggunaan AC, dan komputer pada ruang yang sama. Metode BEE Code of Lighting digunakan untuk pengukuran penerangan, sedangkan metode observasi langsung dilakukan untuk manajemen penggunaan listrik dan RTH eksisting. Emisi CO2 dari penggunaan daya listrik dihitung dengan faktor emisi sesuai dengan ketentuan Surat Kementrian ESDM Dirjen Ketenagalistrikan Nomor 1281/05/600.4/2012. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa emisi yang dihasilkan sebesar 1.966,266 ton CO2/tahun. Pengurangan emisi dengan manajemen penggunaan listrik eksisting diperkirakan dapat mengurangi emisi sebesar 31,302 ton CO2/tahun. Apabila dilakukan penggantian peralatan listrik pengurangan emisinya menjadi 251,271 ton CO2/tahun. Sedangkan RTH yang dibutuhkan untuk memenuhi ketentuan minimal adalah sebesar 325,3 m2 dan ini sebanding dengan penyerapan CO2 sebesar 1,789 ton CO2/tahun.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Teknik ITSSame topicWaste Management and RecyclingFrench-language works237,207