Efektivitas Pencahayaan Alami pada Bangunan 2 Tingkat dan Kaitannya dengan Kebutuhan Penghuni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bangunan yang dirancang agar pencahayaan alami dapat masuk akan mempertimbangakan intensitas cahaya yang diperlukan oleh setiap penghuninya. Salah satu cara untuk mendistribusikan cahaya untuk bangunan 2 tingkat ialah menggunakan void. Kebutuhan penghuni akan besarnya intensitas cahayadapat berbeda-beda sesuai jenis kegiatannya. Dengan terpenuhinya kebutuhan pencahayaan di siang hari menggunakan cahaya alami, maka akan menghemat konsumsi energy. Dalam tulisan ini dipaparkan bahasan tentang koreksi suatu bangunan di Bandung tentang efektivitas keberadaan void untuk solusi penyaluran sumber cahaya alami. Data diperoleh dengan melakukan pengamatan selama 1 minggu untuk memperoleh data sampel. Analisis dilakukan dengan melakukan perbandingan data-data tersebut. Hasil pengamatan mengindikasikan bahwa adanya void belum tentu berhasil mendistribusikan cahaya dengan baik, tergantung dari tipe bukaan yang dirancang. Perbedaan jenjang dan sektor pendidikan penghuni kamar memiliki pengaruh terhadap kebutuhan cahaya dan persentase masuknya cahaya alami ke dalam kamar.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".