MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914998659 · doi:10.25104/warlit.v26i3.879

Faktor Penyebab Kecelakaan Penerbangan Di Landas Pacu

2019· article· id· W2914998659 on OpenAlexaff
Welly Pakan

Bibliographic record

VenueWarta Penelitian Perhubungan · 2019
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Management
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi menyatakan bahwa 32 persen kasus kecelakaan penerbangan di Indonesia terjadi di bandar udara dan penyebab utama adalah karena licinnya landas pacu dan data dari ICAO menyatakan bahwa dari tahun 2006 sampai dengan 2012 kecelakaan penerbangan di bandar udara diseluruh dunia 59 persen diakibatkan karena landas pacu yang kurang memadai dan untuk mengatasi hal tersebut, Internasional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) mengeluarkan kebijakan tentang pembentukan runway safety team diseluruh bandar udara. Lokasi pengambilan data opini penumpang/ survei adalah di bandar udara Adi Sucipto Yogjakarta dari tanggal 12-14 Agustus 2013 dan metode yang digunakan dalam menganalisis data adalah dengan menggunakan analisis Deskriftif Kualitatif untuk menggambarkan hasil inventarisasi identifikasi bidang-bidang yang berhubungan dengan keselamatan penerbangan sedang analisis fish bone digunakan untuk mengetahui penyebab-penyebab utama dari kecelakaan penerbangan di landas pacu. Hasil dari analisis menunjukkan bahwa kecelakaan penerbangan di bandar udara bahwa 37 persen adalah karena landas pacu licin, bergelombang, tergenang air dan adanya rubber deposit (lapisan ban pesawat yang tersisa akibat kikisan landas pacu) dan sisanya diakibatkan oleh faktor manusia sebanyak 31 persen, faktor cuaca dan lingkungan sebesar 23 persen dan faktor management/peraturan sebesar 9 persen. Kata kunci : kecelakaan, penerbangan, landas pacu.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.009

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWarta Penelitian PerhubunganSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ManagementFrench-language works237,207