MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TIPOLOGI DESA BERDASARKAN VARIABEL PENCIRI HUTAN RAKYAT

2011· article· id· W1547226008 on OpenAlexaff
Tien Lastini, Endang Suhendang, I Nengah Surati Jaya, Hardjant Hardjanto, Herry Purnomo

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penelitian Hutan Tanaman · 2011
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Environmental Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian ini menguji penggunaan faktor biofisik dan sosial ekonomi dalam mengklasifikasi desa dengan variabel penciri hutan rakyat. Tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah menentukan variabel yang paling signifikan yang mempengaruhi tipologi desa yang terkait dengan luas hutan rakyat. Penelitian ini dilakukan di Kabupaten Ciamis menggunakan data 336 desa. Dasar pembuatan tipologi pada penelitian ini adalah faktor biofisik dan sosial ekonomi. Terdapat 6 variabel biofisik yaitu: penggunaan lahan non sawah, kelerengan lahan, jarak ke kawasan hutan negara, jarak ke jalan besar, kemampuan lahan, dan kerapatan jalan dan dan 3 variabel sosial ekonomi yaitu: kepadatan penduduk, rumah permanen, dan umur produktif penduduk yang diteliti. Hasil penelitian menemukan terdapat delapan variabel yang berkorelasi, dan satu variabel yang tidak berkorelasi dengan luas hutan rakyat yaitu jarak ke jalan besar. Berdasarkan analisis gerombol, penelitian berhasil menemukan 2 tipologi hutan rakyat, yaitu wilayah yang berpotensi tinggi dan berpotensi rendah untuk berkembangnya hutan rakyat. Variabel yang terpilih untuk penggerombolan adalah berdasarkan desain hasil analisis komponen utama terhadap 8 variabel yang berkorelasi, dengan nilai akurasiumumsebesar 64%. Kata Kunci:Biofisik, analisis gerombol, hutan rakyat, sosial ekonomi, tipologi desa

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penelitian Hutan TanamanSame topicAgricultural and Environmental ManagementFrench-language works237,207