Framework Model in Implementation of Spatial Policy in Makassar City (Framework Model in Implementation of Spatial Policy Change of Makassar City)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to analyze and explain regional spatial policy change by applying policy subsystem variables based on ACF version 1998 by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith. Policy subsystem variables consisting of policy core beliefs, advocacy coalition, and advocacy coalition resource are assumed having influence on spatial policy change. Qualitative approach through case study strategy is applied to investigate policy change and policy subsystem in natural context. Case of the study is changes upon spatial utilization in midtown area of Makassar City. Multi-stakeholder analysis tool by GTZ (2007) is applied to obtain and analyze the data. The study concludes that policy core beliefs change comes from advocacy coalition, while advocacy coalition resource does not affect spatial policy change of Makassar City. The finding implicates theoretically that ACF model version 1998 by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith is inapplicable to explain spatial policy change in Makassar City.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it