Perencanaan Pembangunan Kelurahan Di Kelurahan Semanggi Kota Surakarta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The key to the implementation of the Village Development Planning Forum (Musrenbangkel) is community participation, so that the priority of development programs in accordance with community needs. However, there is a decrease in the implementation of community participation because no realization of development programs proposed society, especially the poor, as well as the implementation tends to be formal and monotonous so as to make people bored and tired. It happened also in the Kelurahan Semanggi which has the densest population with the highest number of poor people in Sub District of Pasar Kliwon. Under these conditions, the purpose of this study was to determine the public participation in the implementation of Musrenbangkel in Kelurahan Semanggu by reviewing Musrenbangkel process, forms of public participation, the level of community participation, as well as internal and external factors that affect the level of community participation. The method used is descriptive quantitative with a Likert scale for questionnaire, frequency distribution and multiple linear regression, as well as qualitative descriptive with purposive sampling and snowball sampling. This study shows that the bottom-up approach to the implementation of Musrenbangkel only be a compromise because the people (still) very dependent on the role of community and government leaders, as well as very poor community initiatives that the government (still) in control in determining local development priorities. Keywords: community participation, Musrenbangkel, Village ABSTRAK Kunci dari pelaksanaan Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan Kelurahan (Musrenbangkel) adalah partisipasi masyarakat, supaya prioritas program pembangunan sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat. Namun demikian, dalam perkembangannya terjadi penurunan partisipasi masyarakat karena tidak terealisasinya program-program pembangunan yang diajukan masyarakat, terutama masyarakat miskin, serta penyelenggaraannya yang cenderung formal dan monoton sehingga membuat masyarakat bosan dan jenuh. Hal tersebut terjadi pula di Kelurahan Semanggi yang memiliki penduduk terpadat dengan jumlah penduduk miskin terbanyak di Kecamatan Pasar Kliwon. Berdasarkan kondisi tersebut, maka tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui partisipasi masyarakat pada pelaksanaan Musrenbangkel di Kelurahan Semanggi dengan cara mengkaji proses Musrenbangkel, bentuk partisipasi masyarakat, tingkat partisipasi masyarakat, serta faktor internal dan eksternal yang berpengaruh terhadap tingkat partisipasi masyarakat. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah deskriptif kuantitatif menggunakan kuesioner dengan skala likert, distribusi frekuensi dan regresi liner berganda, serta deskriptif kualitatif dengan purposive sampling dan snowball sampling. Hasil analisa penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pendekatan bottom up pada pelaksanaan Musrenbangkel hanya bersifat kompromis karena masyarakat (masih) sangat bergantung pada peran tokoh masyarakat dan pemerintah, serta masyarakat sangat miskin inisiatif sehingga pemerintah (masih) memegang kendali pada penentuan prioritas pembangunan daerah.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".