MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604492156 · doi:10.12962/j23373539.v4i1.8973

Penentuan Rute Angkutan Umum berdasarkan Kebutuhan Perjalanan Penduduk di Kawasan Perkotaan Gresik

2015· article· id· W1604492156 on OpenAlexaff
Kifayah Jauhari, Sardjito Sardjito

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknik ITS · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ketimpangan tingkat aksesibilitas angkutan umum di kawasan perkotaan Gresik, rute angkutan umum yang kurang akomodatif terhadap tujuan pergerakan, dan jauhnya jangkauan ke pelayanan angkutan umum, mengindikasikan bahwa rute angkutan umum belum selaras dengan kebutuhan pergerakan penduduk kawasan perkotaan Gresik. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk menentukan alternatif rute untuk angkutan umum di wilayah kawasan perkotaan Gresik berdasarkan kebutuhan pergerakan penduduknya. Penentuan rute angkutan umum dilakukan dengan mengidentifikasi pola pergerakan penduduk yang diolah menjadi Matriks Asal Tujuan Perjalanan, menentukan prioritas kriteria rute pelayanan angkutan umum melalui Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP), dan perumusan rute angkutan umum melalui aplikasi TRANETSIM. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam penentuan rute angkutan umum, pengguna angkutan umum lebih memprioritaskan kemampuan coverage rute dibandingkan dengan total jarak perjalanan. proses penelitian penentuan rute angkutan umum didapatkan 3 rute angkutan umum. Koridor pelayanan rute pertama adalah Terminal Bunder-Suci-Sidokumpul- Randuagung-Terminal Bunder (PP). Koridor pelayanan rute angkutan umum kedua adalah Terminal Bunder-Randuangung (GKB)-Karangpoh-Indro-Terminal Segoromadu (PP). Koridor pelayanan rute angkutan umum ketiga adalah Sub Terminal Segoromadu-Kedanyang-Karangpoh-Sub Terminal Segoromadu (PP)

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.008

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Teknik ITSSame topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207