PENERAPAN METODE SAW DAN TOPSIS SEBAGAI PERBANDINGAN HASIL SISTEM PENDUKUNG KEPUTUSAN PEMILIHAN LOKASI LAHAN TAMBAK PALING TERBAIK UNTUK DIJADIKAN USAHA TAMBAK AIR PAYAU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Banyaknya metode-metode yang tersedia pada sistem pendukung keputusan sehingga kadang membuat bingung memilih mana yang cocok penggunaaan metode yang sesuai dengan kasus sistem pendukung keputusan. Untuk itu dibuat suatu perbandingan dari kasus sistem pendukung keputusan pemilihan lokasi lahan tambak paling terbaik untuk dijadikan usaha tambak air payau untuk perbandingan hasil keputusan. Metode yang digunakan yaitu Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) dan Topsis dengan menentukan banyaknya jumlah kriteria, jenis kriteria (Cost dan Benefit), dengan 3 alternatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu hasil perhitungan manual sama dengan perhitungan yang ada pada sistem. Setiap perhitungan dari dari metode SAW dan Topsis menunjukkan bahwa hasil keputusan pemilihan lokasi lahan tambak paling terbaik untuk dijadikan usaha tambak air payau setiap metode memiliki hasil akhir yang berbeda-beda.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".