KAJIAN TATA CARA PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT DALAM PENATAAN RUANG DI KOTA MALANG
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 it