PENILAIAN KELAYAKAN EKOWISATA KARST CIBADAK DI KECAMATAN CIAMPEA KABUPATEN BOGOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kawasan Karst Cibadak perlu dilakukan penilaian kelayakan ekowisata untuk mengetahui apakah kawasan ini layak dikembangkan atau tidak. Tujuan penelitian adalah menilai kelayakan ekowisata Karst Cibadak terutama area eksokarst yang ada di Desa Cibadak. Metode penelitian adalah deskriptif dengan menggunakan analisa penskoringan Daya Tarik Wisata Alam (DTWA). Hasil penelitian meunjukkan bahwa kawasan Karst Cibadak layak dikembangkan sebagai daerah tujuan ekowisata dengan nilai 77,87%. Daya tarik wisata alam di kawasan Karst Cibadak antara lain: wisata tracking, wisata edukasi dan camping ground. Daya Tarik wisata budaya di kawasan Karst Cibadak yaitu adanya bekas peninggalan Kerajaan Siliwangi. Kawasan ini perlu ditambahkan atraksi wisata lain seperti pengamatan flora dan fauna karst, outbond, penelusuran gua, pengamatan fauna gua agar meningkatkan nilai kelayakan Karst Cibadak. Kata kunci: daya tarik wisata alam, karst Cibadak, kelayakan
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.015 | 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".