KAJIAN TATA CARA PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT DALAM PENATAAN RUANG DI KOTA MALANG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partisipasi Masyrakat menjadi suatu faktor terpenting dalam kemajuan suatu daerah, demikian juga dengan Kota Malang.Partisipasi masyarakat dalam tatanan pemerintah demokratis menghendaki adanya keterlibatan publik dalam proses pengambilan keputusan (decision-making process) yang semakin penting di era otonomi daerah.Kota Malang memiliki kekayaan alam, budaya, dan wilayah yang indah yang dapat dijadikan basis pembangunan selain faktor ekonomi dan politik.Peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam penataan ruang kotamenjadi salah satu kajian khusus bagi pemerintah agar tujuan pembangunan terlaksanan dengan optimal.Guna mewujudkan, peneliti menggunakan metode penelitian Mixed Methods Researchdengan pengambilan data kualitatid dan kuantitatif.Analisis deskriptif kualitatif didukung dengan deskriptif kuantitatif.Sehingga tujuan penelitian untuk penyusunan Naskah Akademis dan Rancangan Peraturan Walikota tentang Tata Cara Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Penataan Ruang Kota Malang ini mampu menjadi suatu acuan dalam pembangunan Kota Malang.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
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".