MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023463934 · doi:10.12962/j2716179x.v13i2.7114

Arahan Peningkatan Keberlanjutan Hutan Kota di Kota Surabaya

2018· article· id· W3023463934 on OpenAlexaff
Ema Umilia, Hasya Aghnia

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penataan Ruang · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hutan Kota Surabaya merupakan salah satu ruang terbuka hijau yang belum sepenuhnya terkoordinir dengan baik dari segi sumber daya vegetasi, komunitas, dan pengelolaannya. Selain itu, luasan dan fungsi hutan kota di surabaya saat ini masih belum sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan Perda No. 15 tahun 2014 tentang Hutan kota. Tahapan penelitian ini diawali hasil content analysis adalah variabel yang berpengaruh yang terbagi dalam 3 faktor yakni sumberdaya vegetasi, komunitas dan pengelolaan. Selanjutnya, dilakukan penilaian tingkat keberlanjutan dengan menggunakan teknik skoring. Kemudian perumusan arahan peningkatan keberlanjutan hutan kota menggunakan analisis deskriptif komparatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan hutan kota berkelanjutan tinggi (hutan kota Pakal, hutan kota Balasklumprik, hutan kota Sumurwelut, dan Kebun Binatang Surabaya) berfokus pada strategi koordinasi antar dinas, kerjasama industri hijau dan warga serta peraturan yang tegas. Sedangkan berkelanjutan sedang dan rendah (hutan kota Lempung, hutan kota Sambikerep, hutan kota Gununganyar, hutan kota Jeruk, hutan kota Penjaringan Sari dan hutan kota Prapen) berfokus pada penanaman secara intensif, pendanaan secara kreatif, pembangunan fasilitas dan perekrutan tenaga kerja sesuai dengan luasan hutan kota

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penataan RuangSame topicForest Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207