DAMPAK TERMINAL MANGKANG KOTA SEMARANG DAN PERMASALAHAN DI KAWASAN SEKITARNYA STUDI KASUS : TERMINAL MANGKANG SEMARANG
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the effect of the presence of terminal Mangkang Semarang to the problems in the surrounding area. In addition to the above-mentioned objectives of this research has the goal to identify Semarang city transportation management, transportation terminals Mangkang analysis, sera footprint analysis to find out the problems that arise, land use, and the use of function space. To achieve the goals and objectives of the research, the method of analysis used is descriptive qualitative analysis.Based on the analysis showed that the terminal performance is less effective and efficient impact on the problems in the surrounding area that the transportation problems in front Mangkang terminal form of congestion caused by transport stops outside the terminal, use less maksmial kiosks that appear hawkers, and environmental problems in the area of the terminal. From the analysis carried out resulted in a recommendation that is used as an alternative in solving problems encountered in general in the terminal region Mangang related to transportation management, transportation terminals, and terminal area footprint. Keywords : Transportation, Terminal, Regional development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it