MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008251541 · doi:10.37367/jpi.v2i2.54

Factors That Influence the Selection of the Solo Soemarmo Airport Train Mode

2018· article· en· W3008251541 on OpenAlexaff
Sapto Priyanto

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Perkeretaapian Indonesia (Indonesian Railway Journal) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainTransport engineeringScheduleSample (material)Operations researchMode (computer interface)Government (linguistics)Service (business)Passenger trainComputer scienceEngineeringOperations managementBusinessMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Government through the National Railway Master Plan has launched the development of the Airport Railway Network and Services to facilitate passenger mobility, one of which is the construction of the Adi Soemarmo Airport train. In April 2017 a groundbreaking project for the development of the Adi Soemarmo Airport, Boyolali District by the President of the Republic of Indonesia was scheduled to be operational in 2019. This study uses a discrete choice model to express the opportunities of each passenger to use the airport train. The research instruments were prepared using predictor variables developed from service dimensions according to Gaspers. The sample used was 200 respondents with random sampling techniques. The data collected is processed using a binary logical regression model because the response variable is in the form of a dichotomy. The results showed the accuracy of the train schedule and affordability of train fares affect the willingness to use airport trains.

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)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Perkeretaapian Indonesia (Indonesian Railway Journal)Same topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207