MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046903515 · doi:10.36859/jap.v3i2.197

PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT DALAM PERENCANAAN PEMBANGUNAN DESA DI KABUPATEN BANDUNG

2020· article· en· W3046903515 on OpenAlexaff
Agustina Setiawan, Utang Suwaryo, Mudiyati Rahmatunnisa

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Academia Praja · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity participationField researchQualitative researchJavaSociologyCommunity developmentSocioeconomicsGeographyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is intended to study community participation in village development planning in Bandung regency, West Java Province. The question raised is related to community participation in Sayati village, Margahayu sub-district; Nanjung Village, Margaasih District; Margamukti Village, Pangalengan District; and Ciburial Village, Cimenyan District, Bandung Regency, West Java Province. Participation is intended more to explore the process of involvement in expressing opinions, opportunities in expressing opinions and opportunities in implementing policy planning and development programs in the four selected villages. In this study, researchers used the Arnstein ladder model developed by Hart as the grand analysis theory in this study. In this study used a qualitative method so that the main instrument is the researcher himself. The technique used in this study is observation which is completed with in-depth interviews conducted with key informants and making field notes about events that researchers encounter in the field. The results showed that, community participation in village development planning in accordance with formal procedures for the formulation of development planning in Bandung Regency, community participation in village development planning which only took the form of physical presence and community participation in village development planning which only took the form of participation ideas and ideas alone by ignoring participation in physical presence.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Academia PrajaSame topicLocal Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207