Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mencari ketepatan dalam pemancangan pondasi tiang dan membandingkan penyimpangan titik tiang pancang yang terjadi di lapangan dengan batasan standar-standar yang ada. Standar-standar yang digunakan untuk batasan toleransi penyimpangan pada tiang pancang adalah British Standard, Canadian Standard, dan Indian Standard. Ke-3 standar di atas menggunakan batas penyimpangan tiang pancang maksimum sebesar 75mm dan 150mm. Data yang menunjukan besarnya penyimpangan tiang pancang ditentukan dari hasil perpindahan tiang secara lateral dari posisi awal rencana tiang pancang tersebut. Hasil penelitian awal terhadap 19 proyek yang menggunakan pondasi tiang dengan dimensi dari 250mm sampai 600mm menunjukan bahwa sekitar 40% tiang dengan diameter 600mm berada dalam batas penyimpangan kurang dari 75mm, sedangkan sekitar 60% tiang dengan diameter 500mm, dan sekitar 65% tiang berdiameter 250mm sampai dengan 450mm. Dengan kata lain dapat disimpulkan bahwa semakin besar dimensi tiang semakin menurun tingkat ketepatan posisi tiang.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".