MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564303651 · doi:10.31942/md.v12i2.1614

ANALISIS PERAMALAN (Forecasting) PRODUKSI KARET (Hevea Brasiliensis) DI PT PERKEBUNAN NUSANTARA IX KEBUN SUKAMANGLI KABUPATEN KENDAL

2016· article· id· W2564303651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eko Yohanes Setyawan, Renan Subantoro, Rossi Prabowo

Bibliographic record

VenueMEDIAGRO · 2016
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural rubberQuarter (Canadian coin)Hevea brasiliensisTonAgricultural scienceProduction (economics)Environmental scienceAutoregressive integrated moving averageMathematicsToxicologyEngineeringOperations managementAgricultural economicsStatisticsGeographyBiologyEconomicsTime seriesChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rubber plant productivity is affected by production factors such as amount of labour, amount of land area, number of productive tree, manure and rainfall. Production factors must be controlled to meet optimum rubber production, due to the increasing need of rubber. Rubber consumption on 2009 is 9,277 millions ton, while on 2010 increase become 10,664 millions ton. World crude rubber is able to provide 9,702 millions ton on 2009 and 10,219 million ton on 2010. Factor that influence rubber harvest result is the benchmark to get the decision to support the rubber achievement harvest optimally. The purposes of this research is to know and forecasting the harvest result of rubber production in PT Perkebunan Nusantara IX (PTPN IX) Sukamangli estate in the future i.e. 2015, 2016 and 2017. This research used descriptive analytical method. The data analysis used forecasting with ARIMA analysis. The base on ARIMA model, forecasting result for rubber production in 2015 amounted to 325675.9 kg (Quarter I), 396571.3 kg (Quarter II), 338552.1 kg (Quarter III), 258359.4 kg (Quarter IV). In 2016 amounted to 356854.6 kg (Quarter I), 442136.9 kg (Quarter II), 387335.1 kg (Quarter III), 293983.5 kg (Quarter IV). In 2017 amounted to 395750.9 kg (Quarter I), 492849.0 kg (Quarter II), 424360.7 kg (Quarter III), 328790.9 kg (Quarter IV). The result of forecasting rubber production showed that the rubber production while be increases on 2017. Keywords: ARIMA,  multiple regression, production factors, rubber production

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMEDIAGROSame topicManagement and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207