MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529899643 · doi:10.36055/setrum.v2i1.240

Studi Pemanfaatan Arus Laut Sebagai Sumber Energi Listrik Alternatif di Wilayah Selat Sunda

2015· article· id· W2529899643 on OpenAlexaff
Budi Supian, Suhendar Suhendar, Rian Fahrizal

Bibliographic record

VenueSetrum Sistem Kendali-Tenaga-Elektronika-Telekomunikasi-Komputer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sumber energi untuk pembangkit listrik yang berasal dari fosil semakin menipis membuat manusia harus mencari sumber energi alternatif seperti sumber energi alternatif arus laut. Salah satu sumber energi alternatif arus laut berada di wilayah selat Sunda, dengan kecepatan arus laut rata-rata per bulan sebesar 0,66-1,10m/s selama satu tahun. Besarnya potensi ini dapat dimanfaatkan pada skema PLTAL (Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Arus Laut) sebagai pembangkit listrik tambahan untuk meningkatkan produksi listrik di wilayah selat Sunda. Energi listrik yang dihasilkan tanpa nilai konstanta efisiensi turbin untuk kecepatan arus laut minimum 0,66m/s sebesar 5,89kW dan maksimum 1,10m/s sebesar 27,28kW, sedangkan energi listrik yang dihasilkan dengan nilai konstanta efisiensi turbin untuk kecepatan arus laut minimum 0,66m/s sebesar 2,06kW dan maksimum 1,10m/s sebesar 9,54kW. Besarnya biaya pembangkitan sebesar Rp.452/kWh dan harga jual listrik sebesar Rp.519/kWh, dengan jumlah pendapatan pertahun didapat sebesar Rp.58.365.567,36/tahun. Hasil studi kelayakan secara finansial diperoleh PLTAL di wilayah selat Sunda cukup layak dengan ROR sebesar 22,88%, dan biaya modal investasi dapat kembali dalam waktu 5 tahun.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSetrum Sistem Kendali-Tenaga-Elektronika-Telekomunikasi-KomputerSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207