Peran Struktur Sosial dalam Pembangunan Sarana Prasarana Permukiman Perkotaan (Studi Kasus: PLPBK Kelurahan Karangwaru Kecamatan Tegalrejo Kota Yogyakarta)
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
Social structure is one of the important elements in development. Elements in the social structure will form relationships and form joint actions on the program. PLPBK Program in Karangwaru Village, Tegalrejo Sub-District, Yogyakarta City has focus on society. Social life is closely related to social structure. Based on the explanation, the purpose of this research is to determine the role of social structure in the PLPBK program in Karangwaru Village. The approach of this research is deductive qualitative. The method of analysis used is descriptive qualitative. Methods of data collection using field observation, secondary survey, and primary survey. Sampling technique of primary survey using non-probability sampling that is purposive sampling. The results showed that the social structure in Karangwaru Village has a positive and negative role in the PLPBK program. Social institutions, social groups, power and authority, and culture have a positive role while social stratification and social dynamics have a positive and negative role. The function of social structures such as maintaining patterns, integration, achieving objectives, and adaptation has been demonstrated by the social structure in the PLPBK program at Karangwaru Village.Keywords: Development; Infrastructure; Social Structure; Society
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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