MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANALISIS PREREFERENSI KONSUMEN DALAM PEMILIHAN JASA TRANSPORTASI DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN KONJOIN ANALISIS

2012· article· en· W27855565 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ayunda Hasparingga

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jasa transportasi menjadi suatu kebutuhan yang sangat penting bagi hampir kebanyakan orang. Seiring dengan perkembangan masyarakat, jasa industri transportasi sekarang sangat beragam misalnya: ada yang menawarkan jasa taksi motor dengan harga yang murah, angkutan umum bis trans-Jogja yang bisa berpindah-pindah dari halte ke halte tanpa membayar lagi sesuai dengan ketentuan yang ada, taksi mobil dengan variasi pelayanan yang ditawarkan, ada yang taksi mobil dengan kapasitas penumpang besar dan ada yang menawarkan kupon berhadiah atau potongan harga. Pada penelitian ini adalah menentukan tingkat kepentingan relatif masing-masing atribut dari jasa transportasi serta profil segmentasi konsumen jasa transportasi berdasarkan tingkat kepentingan relatif masing-masing atribut bagi masing-masing konsumen,mengetahui masukan yang dapat diberikan terhadap bussiness plan untuk penyedia jasa transportasi. Profil jasa penyedia transportasi yang diinginkan konsumen adalah penyedia transportasi dengan layanan tarif tidak terlalu mahal dengan persentase 11.811%, kenyamanan 7.849%, kapasitas penumpang 8.325%, jadwal pemberangkatan 6.923%, area 6.872%, komunikasi karyawan 7.301%, jalur/rute 7.842% dan akses transportasi 8.464%. Dari analisis klaster dihasilkan 8 segmen dan diketahui faktor demografi yang mempengaruhi pembentukan segmen secara signifikan yaitu jenis kelamin, status perkawinan, usia, pekerjaan, pendapatan rata-rata dan pendidikan. Keywords : Transportasi, Konjoin analisis, Klaster

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207