MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906025015 · doi:10.24036/student.v1i1.36

PEMETAAN KERAWANAN KRIMINALITAS DI WILAYAH HUKUM KEPOLISIAN RESORT (POLRES) KOTA PAYAKUMBUH TAHUN 2014

2017· article· id· W2906025015 on OpenAlexaff
Afni Rizka Azwardi, Paus Iskarni, Endah Purwaningsih

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL BUANA · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tujuan penelitian ini untuk: (1) Mengetahui jenis tindak kriminalitas dan persentase setiap jenis tindak kriminalitas yang terjadi di Wilayah Hukum Kepolisian Resort (POLRES) Kota Payakumbuh tahun 2014. (2) Memetakan kerawanan kriminalitas di Wilayah Hukum Kepolisian Resort (POLRES) Kota Payakumbuh tahun 2014.Jenis penelitian deskriptif kuantitatif .Teknik analisis data dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode analisis statistik dan teknik overlay pada peta.Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa: (1) Jenis tindak kriminalitas meliputi jenis kriminal yaitu: Curas (pencurian dengan kekerasan) sebanyak 88 kasus. Curat (pencurian dengan pemberatan) sebanyak 242 kasus. Curanmor (pencurian sepeda bermotor) sebanyak 87 kasus. Anirat (penganiayaan berat) sebanyak 176 kasus dan Aniring (penganiayaan ringan) sebanyak 160 kasus. Persentase perbandingan antara berbagai jenis kejahatan atau tindak kriminalitas tertinggi sebesar 38,5% untuk Curat di Kecamatan Lampasi Tigo Nagari dan yang paling rendah sebesar 6,1% untuk Curanmor terjadi di Kecamatan Luhak. (2) Kerawanan kriminalitas tertinggi terjadi di Kecamatan Payakumbuh Barat sebesar 49 kali per satuan penduduk dan terendah di Kecamatan Lampasi Tigo Nagari sebesar 4 kali per satuan penduduk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 venueJURNAL BUANASame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207