MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912981739 · doi:10.26760/rekaracana.v4i2.47

Perencanaan Tebal Perkerasan Jalan Logging di Kabupaten Penajam, Kalimantan Timur. (Hal. 47-57))

2018· article· id· W2912981739 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Algi Brilianto, Silvia Sukirman, Welly Pradipta

Bibliographic record

VenueRekaRacana Jurnal Teknil Sipil · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRAKPerkerasan merupakan salah satu komponen prasarana pada kegiatan logging yang harus didesain agar dapat melayani lalu-lintas kendaraan berat. Metode Austroads 2006 dan Bina Marga 2017 merupakan panduan dalam perencanaan tebal perkerasan jalan logging. Studi kasus untuk penelitian ini dilakukan di Kabupaten Penajam, Kalimantan Timur. Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh dari konsultan perencana, niilai CBR pada ruas jalan rencana dibagi menjadi empat segmen dengan nilai CBR pada segmen 1 = 3%, segmen 2 = 9%, segmen 3 = 29% dan segmen 4 = 9%. Perencanaan dilakukan dengan umur rencana 10 tahun dan tingkat pertumbuhan 3%. Jenis perkerasan yang digunakan untuk kedua metode berupa batu pecah. Hasil perencanaan tebal perkerasan menggunakan metode Austroads 2006 untuk segmen 1 = 480 mm, segmen 2 = 320 mm, segmen 3 = 160 mm dan segmen 4 = 320 mm. Hasil perencanaan tebal perkerasan menggunakan metode Bina Marga 2017 untuk segmen 1 = 480 mm, segmen 2 = 260 mm, segmen 3 = 140 mm dan segmen 4 = 260 mm.Kata kunci: perencanaan tebal perkerasan jalan logging ABSTRACTPavement is one of the infrastructure components in logging activities that must be designed in order to serve heavy vehicle traffic. Austroads 2006 method and Bina Marga 2017 methodis a guide to design the thickness of logging pavement. Case study for this research was conducted in Penajam District, East Kalimantan. Based on the data obtained from the planner consultant, the CBR value on the road plan is divided into four segments with CBR value in segment 1 = 3%, segment 2 = 9%, segment 3 = 29% and segment 4 = 9%. The planning is done with 10 years and 3% growth rate. Types of pavement used for both methods is granular. The results of pavement thickness planning using Austroads 2006 method for segment 1 = 480 mm, segment 2 = 320 mm, segment 3 = 160 mm and segment 4 = 320 mm. The results of pavement thickness planning using Bina Marga 2017 method for segment 1 = 480 mm, segment 2 = 260 mm, segment 3 = 140 mm and segment 4 = 260 mm.Keywords: thickness design of pavement logging

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRekaRacana Jurnal Teknil SipilSame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207