Failure Factors of Public-Private Partnership at Tourism Port Development of Tanahampo in Bali
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in Indonesia only succeeded in the road sector and clean water. PPP sector Tourism Port Tanahampo failure, despite the tender held for 2 (two) times. This failure is a failure of government that has targeted the development of Tanahampo Port Tourism as a priority program which is already listed in the list of Bappenas in 2012. This study is a literature study, comparing the determinants of success (Critical Success Factors/CSF) PPP in the literature with the failure of the PPP Harbor Tourism Tanah Ampo Bali. This study concluded that the factors causing the failure of the PPP in the construction of port infrastructure Tanahampo tourism in Bali, among others: (1) Factors aspects procurement, tender failed twice caused no interested participants to submit bids; (2) Factors legal aspects, namely: the seizure of local government authorities (local government) and the Central Government. Local Government area of less agreed to surrender assets to the central government on the grounds of regional autonomy; (3) Factors consortium aspects, namely: lack of clarity about the PPP models that will be implemented, the Government tendered by BOT system, while most of the infrastructure has been built by the government; (4) social and cultural factors, the community asked the percentage of labor up to 30% at the time of operation, which is not necessarily the expertise and there is no clear form of cooperation the transfer of land belonging to local communities in the PPP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".