MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948250112 · doi:10.33087/civronlit.v1i1.1

KAJIAN TINGKAT KEBISINGAN KOMPLEK PERMUKIMAN DI RUANG PERUNTUKAN PERDAGANGAN DAN JASA DI KOTA JAMBI

2016· article· id· W2948250112 on OpenAlexaff
Guntar Marolop S

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Civronlit Unbari · 2016
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitectural and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Merujuk pada Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jambi Tahun 2013-2033, salah satu ruang peruntukan perdagangan dan jasa di kota Jambi adalah di jalan Prof. Dr. Soemantri Brojonegoro Kelurahan Solok Sipin Kota Jambi yang diambil sebagai lokasi penelitian mewakili Kota Jambi. Namun, pada ruang tersebut terdapat komplek permukiman. Dengan demikian bila di ruang peruntukan perdagangan dan jasa terdapat permukiman, maka baku mutu lingkungan tingkat kebisingan cenderung melampaui baku mutu tingkat kebisingan permukiman, yakni > 55 dB (A).Untuk mengkaji tingkat kebisingan dilingkungan permukiman yang berada pada wilayah peruntukan perdagangan dan jasa merujuk ke Keputusan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Nomor : 48/MENLH/XI/1996 Tentang Baku Tingkat Kebisingan yaitu Parameter kebisingan Ekivalen (Leq), kebisingan rata-rata (Levg), kebisingan minimum (Lmin), dan kebisingan maksimum (Lmax).Tingkat kebisingan di komplek permukiman Kota Jambi yang terletak di ruang peruntukan perdagangan dan jasa sudah di atas baku mutu lingkungan, yakni : 1. Tingkat Kebisingan Ekivalen = 62,4 dB (A); 2. Tingkat Kebisingan Rata-rata = 62,2 dB (A); 3. Tingkat Kebisingan Minimum =60,2 dB (A); dan 4. Tingkat Kebisingan Maksimum = 64,3 dB (A)

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1710.057

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Civronlit UnbariSame topicArchitectural and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207