MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972759951 · doi:10.29103/tj.v9i2.233

STUDI PEMETAAN DAERAH GENANGAN BANJIR DAS SEI KAMBING DENGAN SISTEM INFORMASI GEOGRAFIS

2019· article· en· W2972759951 on OpenAlexaff
Asril Zevri

Bibliographic record

VenueTeras Jurnal Jurnal Teknik Sipil · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimedia Learning Systems
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Return periodWatershedDrainage basin100-year floodEnvironmental scienceFlooding (psychology)Flood mitigationFlood stageGeographyGeologyCartographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sei Sikambing River Basin is one of the Sub Das of Deli River which has an important role in water requirement in Medan City. Rainfall with high intensity is supported by changes in land use causing floods which reach 0.6 m to 1 m from river banks. The purpose of this study was to map the Sei Kambing River basin flood inundation area as information to the public in disaster mitigation efforts. The scope of this research is to analyze the maximum daily rainfall with a return period of 2 to 100 years, analyze flood discharge with a return period of 2 to 100, analyze flood water levels with HECRAS software, and spatially map flood inundation areas with GIS. The results showed that the return flood rate of the Sikambing watershed with a 25-year return period of 211.94 m3/s caused the flood level of the Sikambing watershed to be between 1.7 m to 3.7 m. The Sikambing watershed flood inundation area reached an area of 1.19 Km2 which resulted in the impact of flooding on 5 sub-districts in Medan, namely Medan Selayang District, Medan Sunggal, Medan Petisah, Medan Helvetia, and West Medan.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeras Jurnal Jurnal Teknik SipilSame topicMultimedia Learning SystemsFrench-language works237,207