Paradigma Good Governance Menuju Shared Governance Melalui Reformasi Birokrasi dan Inovasi Pelayanan Publik.
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
The purpose of this paper is to describe the concepts of good governance and shared governance within the framework of the Indonesian political system. This has an important connection with public service as a realization of political policy. The problem of public services is still a challenge in improving good governance. The paradigm of good governance continues to develop according to the demands and needs of society. The method used is through a theoretical and basic study of theory. This paradigm has led to shared governance. Meanwhile, bureaucratic reform has become an important agenda that must continue to be escorted to the lowest level. To improve quality, optimize better performance, and professionals need service innovation. Public service innovation through experience learning as a concrete step in maximizing the potential of the apparatus. This innovation aims to improve the performance of the apparatus through education, training, and the development of self-potential oriented to the values of experience and practice as self-actualization in the performance of public services.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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