MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768048644 · doi:10.20961/arst.v13i2.15654

STUDI KESESUAIAN PENERAPAN STANDAR LINGKUNGAN PERUMAHAN SEDERHANA SEHAT DI KOTA SERANG

2017· article· en· W2768048644 on OpenAlexaff
Ria Fitri, Soedwiwahjono Soedwiwahjono, Rufia Andisetyana Putri

Bibliographic record

VenueArsitektura · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitectural and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital cityPopulationBusinessAgricultural scienceGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serang city is the Capital City of Banten Province. As the time goes by, the population increases and the poor people needs an access to have a home. There are two housing environments, which is called “simple healthy housing environment” to help the poor people ,which are Banten Indah Permai and Bumi Serang Timur, but the condition is the housing environments are lack of infrastructures and facilities. This problem makes a question how the suitability of simple healthy housing environment in Kota Serang is. The suitability study of simple healthy housing environment in Serang city is done by using scoring method analysis to count the suitability of the simple healthy housing environment standards as the output and perception of the people inside the housing environment as the outcome of this simple healthy housing environment. Descriptive comparative analysis is used also to know how output and outcome can match each other in the housing environment. Final scoring result obtained that Banten Indah Permai has been classified as suit in output because of the 58 score , but Bumi Serang Timur is not suit in output because it has 55 score. In outcome scoring, Banten Indah has been classified as suit in outcome for the 76,94 score, and also for Bumi Serang Timur has 75,68 for the outcome score. With comparative analyisis, this study also obtained that there are many infrastructure and facilities in housing environment which are not give the outcome as usual the housing environment gives. Keywords: simple healthy housing, suitability, scoring, environment,

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArsitekturaSame topicArchitectural and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207