MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924240907

Analisis Persepsi Pelaku Perjalanan dalam Pemilihan Moda Transportasi Umum dengan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (Ahp) (Wilayah DKI Jakarta)

2015· article· id· W1924240907 on OpenAlex

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 Ilmiah Universitas Bakrie · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processHierarchyProcess (computing)EngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceOperations researchLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui persepsi pelaku perjalanan dalam hal pemilihan transportasi umum dan mengetahui prioritas dalam hal pemilihan transportasi yang digunakan oleh para pelaku perjalanan kota Jakarta untuk memperoleh suatu model pemilihan moda yang dapat menjelaskan persepsi pelaku perjalanan dalam memilih moda angkutan umum antara transjakarta, bus mini, mikrolet, ojek, commuter line, taksi, APTB dan bus antar kota berdasakan lima kriteria waktu, biaya, frekuensi, kenyamanan dan keamanan. Survei dilakukan dengan menyebarkan kuesioner pada pengguna jasa angkutan umum kota Jakarta. Hasil survei dianalisis dengan Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) untuk menentukan urutan prioritas. Hasil analisis terhadap 45 responden memperlihatkan urutan kriteria yang terpenting adalah Keamanan sebesar 40,7 %, lalu Kenyamanan sebesar 29,6 % dan waktu sebesar 14,5 % selanjutnya Ongkos sebesar 9,3 % dan kriteria yang diperingkat terakhir adalah frekuensi 5,9 %. Sedangkan urutan prioritas alternatif moda yang paling optimal fungsi dan keberadaannya di Jakarta adalah sebagai berikut: Taksi sebesar 30,9%, Commuter Line dengan bobot prioritas sebesar 20,3 %, dan peringkat ketiga adalah Transjakarta dengan bobot prioritas sebesar 11,8 %, setelah itu  Ojek dengan bobot sebesar 10,3 %, Bus antar kota memiliki bobot sebesar 8,5 %, Bus mini sebesar 5,3 % dan Mikrolet berada diurutan terakhir dengan bobot sebesar 3,9 %. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa Taksi merupakan alternatif pemilihan moda yang paling optimal dibandingkan dengan alternatif moda yang lainya dan  keamanan adalah kriteria yang paling penting dalam meggunakan angkutan umum. Kata Kunci : Analytical Hierarchy Process , prioritas, persepsi,transportasi umum. Abstract The objectives of this research is obtain the moda choice that can explain perceptions of passengers and the priority choosen by passengers of public transportation of Jakarta in selecting public transportions modes among Transjakarta, Mini bus, Mikrolet, Ojek, Commuter line, Taxi, APTB and Inter-city buses based on the five criteria of the time, the cost, the frequency, the convenience and the safety. The survey was conducted by distributing questionnaires to passengers of public transportation services in Jakarta. The results of the survey were analyzed by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the order of priority. Analysis of 45 respondents showed that the most important criterion is in the order of 40.7% safety,  29.6% convenience, 14.5% time, then fare by 9.3% and the latter criterion is rated frequency of 5.9%. Furthermore, the result showed that the priority order of the most optimal alternative modes based on its functions and availability in Jakarta are as follows: Taxi by 30.9%, Commuter Line with priority weighting of 20.3%, and the third is  Transjakarta with priority weighting of 11.8%,Ojek by 10.3%, inter-city bus by 8.5%, 5.3% of mini bus and microlet was ranked last with a weighting of 3.9%. This indicated that taxi is the alternative option in the selection of the most optimal mode compared to other alternative modes and security is the most important criteria choosen by passengers in riding public transportation. Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process, priorities, perceptions, public transport. Daftar Pustaka Buku dan Jurnal AD, Ana febrianti, Mashuri, 2012 . Studi kebutuhan angkutan umum penumpang perkotaan di kota Palu (studi kasus: Tarayek Mamboro- Manonda) , Palu: Jurnal Rekayasa dan Manajemen Transportasi Volume II No. 1, Januari 2012 Hal. 34 - 45 Atmanti, H.D, 2008. Analytical Hierarchy Process sebangai model yang luwes, Semarang:Teknik Industri UNDIP. Bambang , AHP Pusat Antar Universitas – Studi Ekonomi , Univeristas Indonesia, Jakarta. Banuelas R and Antony J, 2007. Application of stohastic analytic hierarchy process within a domestic appliance manufacturer . Journal of the operational research society. 58: 29-38. Barritella M, 2007. An Analytic Hierarchy Process in The Evaluation of Transport Policien to Reduce Climate Change Hipacts . Working Paper of Universitas di Palermo. Clare C and Peter L, 2005. A strategic service quality approach using analytic hierarchi process. Ryerson university canada. The emerald research register for this journal is available. Vol. 15. No 3: 278-289. Haya, La ode M. Yasir, 2002. Analisis Kebijakan pengelolaa sumber daya terumbu karang kasus penangkapan ikan yang merusak (sianida dan Bom) di kepulauan spermonde sulawesi selatan , Analisis, Maret 2007, Vol.4 No 1: 13-30. Jani  R, Ronald  E. Stok, dan Rosa Yustina, “ Penerapan Multi-Criteria Decision Making Dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Sistem Perawatan”, Jurnal Teknik lndustri Vol. 2, No. 1, Juni, 2000, hal 35 Kang, S. and Lee, S. 2007. AHP-Based Decision-Making Process for Median Barrier Installation. Computing in Civil Engineering . pp. 452-464. Liebowitz, J. 2005. Linking social network analysis with the analytic hierarchi process for knowledge mapping in organizations. Journal of knowledge management. Vol 9. No 1: 76-86 Miro, Fidel. 2005. Perencanaan Transportasi Untuk Mahasiswa, Perencana, dan Praktisi . Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga. Nasution. 2004. Metode Research .  Jakarta:Bumi Aksara. Robbins Stephen P. & Mary Coulter (1999). Management ., Jilid 1 dan Jilid 2. Pearson Asia. Prentice Hall. Inc Saaty, T.L. 1990, ” Decision Making for Leaders - The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Company World ”, RWS Publication, Pittsburgh. Saaty, T. L. 1993. “ Pengambilan Keputusan Bagi Para Pemimpin ” PT. Pustaka Binaman Pressindo, Jakarta. Saaty, T.L.1994 How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces. Saaty, T.L. 2008. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes Applications to Decisions Under Risk , European Journal Of Pure And Applied Mathematics Vol. 1, No 1, (122-196) Siagian, Sondang P., 2000, Filsafat Administrasi , Jakarta: Penerbit Gunung agung Sukarto, Haryono 2006 .” Pemilihan Model Transportasi di DKI Jakarta dengan Analisa Kebijakan “Proses hirarki analitik ”, jurnal teknik sipil Vol.3, Januari 2006, hal 25-35,  Universitas Pelita Harapan: Tangerang. Sugihartono, dkk. 2007. Psikologi Pendidikan . Yogyakarta: UNY Press. Sugiyono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D . Bandung:  CV.Alfabeta. Suharsimi Arikunto, dkk. 2009. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas . Jakarta: Bumi Aksara. Tamin, Ofyar Z.1992.” Pemecahan Kemacetan Kota Besar ”, Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, No.4, Triwulan II, Juni 1992, hal, 10-17, Bandung. Teknomo, Kardi.1999.“ Penggunaan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process dalam Menganalisa Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pemilihan moda ke Kampus ”, jurnal teknik sipil Vol.1. No.1. Maret 1999, hal 31-39 Waidi. 2006. “ The Art of Re-engineering Your Mind for Success ”. Jakarta, Gramedia. Warpani, S. 1990. “ Merencanakan Sistem Perangkutan ”. Bandung: Penerbit ITB. Yang and Ping Shi, 2002. Applying Analitic Hierarchi Process in Fiansoverall performance Evaluation. A case Study in China . International jornal of Busines vol 7. No. 1: 29-46. Sumber Elektronik Data statistik penumpang Transjakarta tahun 2014 http://www.transjakarta.co.id/publikasi.php?q=1pXPwtjR4g== Data statistik jumlah penumpang kereta api tahun 2006-2014 http://bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1417 . Peraturan Undang-undang Keputusan Menteri Perhubungan Nomor KM.35 Tahun 2003 tentang Penyelenggaraan Angkutan Orang di Jalan dengan Kendaraan Umum. Undang Undang No. 14 Tahun 1992 Tentang: Lalu Lintas Dan Angkutan Jalan. Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 22 tahun 2009 tentang lalu lintas Tugas Akhir Anggraeni, R.D. 2009. Preferensi pilihan moda dengan kajian intermodality pada pergerakan penumpang angkutan umu jurusan Bandung-Jakarta (stuudi kasus: Moda Kereta Api dan Travel. Bandung: Tugas Akhir Prodi Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota Institut Teknologi Bandung. Lubis, N.A. 2010. Analisa pemilihan transportasi Medan-Binjai menggunakan metode analytical hierarchy process (AHP) . Sumatera Utara: Tugas akhir Bidang studi Trasportasi Departemen Teknik Sipil Universitas Sumatera Utara. Wicaksono, S. 2009. Analisa faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan moda transportasi penduduk kerja di kecamatan Sukmajaya Depok menuju tempat kerja dengan menggunakan metode analytical hierarchy proces s. Jakarta: Tugas akhir Bidang studi Teknik Sipil dan perencanaan Universitas Gunadarma.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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