KAJIAN TERHADAP AKSESIBILITAS FISIK BAGI TUNANETRA DAN TUNADAKSA DI GEDUNG LPPMP UNY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRAKKajian tentang aksesibilitas berkaitan erat dengan fungsi ruang, akses menuju ruang, elemen bangunan dan seting komponen. Paper ini akan menjelaskan bagaimana kemampuan fasilitas fisik di Kampus Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta dalam mengakomodasi kebutuhan penyandang disabilitas. Evaluasi ini difokuskan pada Gedung Lembaga Pengembangan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (LPPMP) UNY. Kajian ini merupakan kajian deskriptif kuantitatif. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan observasi bangunan dan pengukuran pada elemen sarana aksesibilitas. Pengelompokan data dibuat berdasarkan elemen aksesibilitas yang setipe. Analisis data dilakukan dengan cara mengkomparasikan dengan standar perencanaan bangunan aksesibel yang telah ditetapkan oleh Kementrian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (PUPR). Hasil dari kajian evaluasi didapatkan bahwa aksesibilitas tunanetra 70,86%, dan aksesibilitas tunadaksa 75,115%. Nilai 70,86% menunjukkan aksesibilitas tunanetra masuk dalam kategori “tidak andal”, sementara 75,115% menunjukkan aksesibilitas tunadaksa masuk dalam kategori “kurang andal”. Hasil studi ini dapat menjadi referensi untuk pengembangan bangunan LPPMP maupun fasilitas fisik lain di lingkungan UNY yang lebih ramah difabel ke depan.. Kata Kunci: aksesibilitas, disabilitas, LPPMP UNY ABSTRACTStudy on accessibility is closely related to space functions, access to spaces, building elements, and component settings. The paper explained the ability of Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) infrastructure to accommodate the needs of disabilities. This paper was focused on the LPPMP (Lembaga Pengembangan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan) Building UNY. This study used descriptive quantitative method. The data were collected by building observations, and measurements on accessibility elements. Grouping data was managed based on elements with typical forms. Data analysis was done by comparing with accessible building planning standards established by the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing (PUPR). The results of the evaluation study found that accessibility for the blind and low vision people was 70.86% (indicates that accessibility is not reliable), and accessibility for orthopedically handicapped was 75.115% (indicates that the accessibility is less reliable). The result of this research is important to be a reference in development of LPPMP building and other infrastructure in UNY in the next, especially in order to be disability friendly campus building Keyword: accessibility, disability, LPPMP UNY
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".