MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592491924

Faktor-Faktor Kinerja Green Terminal Hamid Rusdi Kota Malang

2015· article· id· W2592491924 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Agung Sedayu

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim (University of Southampton) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Kristen PetraUniversitas Sebelas MaretChalmers Tekniska HögskolaMcGill UniversityUniversitas DiponegoroDe La Salle University
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terminal Hamid Rusdi adalah terminal tipe B yang beroerasi pada tahun 2009 di kota Malang. Untuk saat ini terminal ini dalam kondisi sepi dari penumpang dan angkutan umum. Untuk mengatasi persoalan tersebut diperlukan suatu kajian atau penelitian untuk meningkatkan kinerja terminal. Penelitian ini bertujuan bertujuan untuk memperoleh faktor-faktor kinerja Green Terminal Hamid Rusdi Kota Malang yang dapat dijadikan sebagai instrumen evaluasi dalam peningkatan kinerja Terminal Hamid Rusdi yang berkelanjutan dan ramah lingkungan. Metode yang digunakan adalah wawancara dan penyebaran angket awal kepada responden yang terdiri dari penumpang, operator angkutan umum, dan penyewa fasilitas komersial terminal. Hasil penelitian mendapatkan 12 faktor kinerja Green Terminal. Dari 12 faktor tersebut faktor Penerapan Konsep Ramah Lingkungan (X12) menjadi faktor tertinggi tingkat kebutuhannya dan Keandalan Transportasi (X7) menjadi faktor tertinggi kedua dalam tingkat kebutuhannya. Dua belas faktor tersebut dapat dperinci pada tahap selanjutnya dalam penyusunn instrumen dalam survei lanjutan dan analisis yang lebih detil dan mendalam

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Repository Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim (University of Southampton)Same topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207