IMPLEMENTASI PERENCANAAN PEMBANGUNAN DAERAH (Studi tentang Musrenbang di Kabupaten Sumenep)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional Development Planning through Musrenbang a means to foster initiativeand active role in community development planning (Bottom Up Planning) aremechanically and functionally with activities planned development based on theprinciple of consensus, mobilize and improve the initiatives and participation ofthe community to carry out development in an integrated and foster the dynamicconditions of the community. This research method using a qualitative approach.Research carried out by focusing on two districts and three villages and thevillages and informants deliberately determined among the actors involved in theimplementation of planning forums. Of the several theories of implementation, thecombination approach better able to explain than the top-down, bottom-upapproach and the critical-creative approach. While the implementation modelMerilee Griddle (1980) combined with Elmore models more appropriate toanalyze the implementation of Musrenbang compared with models otherimplementations.Keywords: Implementation, Musrenbang, Public Participation
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it