Quadruple Helix Model on Creative Economy Development in Bandung Regency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses the quadruple helix model and creative economy as research variables. This study is conducted on the creative sector in Bandung Regency. The research process is mainly executed through focus group discussion (FGD) with all essential parties and interviews with stakeholders in regional work units. The FGD and interview procedure will generate accountable information related to (1) Potential map for the creative economy; (2) SWOT analysis and available partnership programs for the development of the creative economy; (3) a description of cooperation system between related parties in Quadruple helix; (4) Conception of a government partnership program with creative communities through program activities. This study's significant result indicates that the role of government in Quadruple helix cooperation is 60 percent in 2016 and decreasing to 10 percent in 2019. The reduction of the governmental function is also accompanied by the increasingly dominant role of creative entrepreneurs each year, reaching 55 percent in 2019. This phenomenon shows that the development of the creative economy is becoming more independent every year.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".