MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pemodelan Spasial Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan di Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun Salak dan Daerah Penyangganya

2018· article· en· W2788592209 on OpenAlexaff
Iwan Kurniawan, Baba Barus, Andrea Emma Pravitasari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Regional and Rural Development Planning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyLand useDeforestation (computer science)ZoningLand coverAgricultureAgroforestryForestryAgricultural landBuffer zoneHuman settlementEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land use activities in Gunung Halimun Salak National Park (GHSNP) that does not comply with the zoning plan of GHSNP cause degradation, deforestation and decreasing GHSNP size, while land use activities intensively in the surrounding of GHSNP (buffer area) that does not comply with the spatial allocation plan may alter landscape configuration that influence ecological processes and biodiversity within national park. Predicting land use and land cover (LULC) change patterns in the future provides important information for identifying areas that vulnerable to changes. Multi-temporal remote sensing data was used to identify LULC, a multi-layer perceptron neural network with a Markov chain model (MLPNN-M) was used to predict LULC in 2025 and to analyze LULC trend, Overlaying analysis was used to analyze the consistency between LULC and spatial allocation regulation in 2025. The results show that LULC in GHSNP and its buffer area consist of prmary forests, secondary forests, mixture crops, plantations, settlements, agriculture, shrubs, and water. The primary forests, secondary forests, mixture crops, and agriculture were predicted to decrease while settlements, plantations and shrubs were predicted to increase. Land conversion trends into secondary forests, plantations, agriculture and shrubs that begin to show centralized patterns within and the boundaries of GHSNP need to be anticipated. In 2025, inconsistency between land use and GHSNP zonation is the existence of mixture crops, plantations, settlements and agriculture outside the special zone whereas inconsistency between land use and spatial allocation regulation is existence of plantations and agriculture in conservation forest, protection forest and production forest.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Regional and Rural Development PlanningSame topicForest Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207