Disaster Preparedness Analysis of Public Health Centers in DKI Jakarta Province in 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the disaster preparedness level of public health centers in DKI Jakarta Province to deal with disasters. The study for this mini-thesis used a mixed method approach. Data were collected through interviews, observations, and document reviews by referring to the guideline in the PAHO: Evaluation of small & medium-sized health facilities series 4. Variables studied were disaster potentials, structural safety, non-structural safety, and functional aspects that were then synthesized to determine the disaster preparedness level of the public health center, which is referred to as Puskesmas in Indonesian. Results showed that the preparedness scores were 0.65 and 0.6 for Puskesmas X and Puskesmas Y, respectively. This means that both public health centers are in the preparedness level B, requiring both public health centers to do interventions in the near future because they still have risks when facing disasters. The score for structural safety of both public health centers was 0.77, or classified as “a”. This reflects the adequacy of the structural safety of both public health centers to face disasters. The non-structural safety scores for Puskesmas X and Puskesmas Y were 0.65 and 0.63, respectively, which were interpreted as “b” classification. This shows that both public health centers still have risks in terms of their non-structural aspect when dealing with disasters. The scores for the functional aspect of Puskesmas X was 0.53, while Puskesmas Y presented a score of 0.39. Hence, the functional aspect of the two public health centers was in “b” classification, meaning that both public health centers still have risks in terms of their functional aspect when dealing with disasters. Therefore, both public health centers must continue to improve the disaster preparedness level of their facilities in terms of their structural, non-structural, and functional safety aspects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".