Menelusuri kebenaran letusan Gunung Merapi 1006
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
http://dx.doi.org/10.17014/ijog.vol1no4.20064Until now, the large eruption of Merapi in 1006 is believed to take place although the truth is still debatable. Previous investigation proposed that the ”pralaya” of the Ancient Mataram Kingdom in 928 Saka (1006) was due to a volcanic activity. Bemmelen also inferred that impact of the eruption had destroyed and covered the Mendut and Borobudur Temples and dammed the Progo River. However, if the “pralaya” was caused by Merapi eruption, why the deposit that correlates to the the eruption is not recognized. If so, the eruption that covered the temples should have been very large, and left deposits around Merapi and of course easy to find. Historically, the “pralaya“ mentioned in the Pucangan Inscription did not happen in 1006, but in 1016 or 1017. However the “pralaya“ was caused by the attack of King Wurawari, not by the Merapi eruption. According to the history of Merapi eruptions, 11 large eruptions have occurred since 3000 years ago. However, none of those fi t with 1006 eruption. Except the large eruption (VEI 3-4), that produced Selo tephra, dated 1112 ± 73 years BP (765-911).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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