PERSEPSI DAN PREFERENSI PENGUNJUNG UNTUK ARAHAN PENATAAN TAMAN ABHIRAMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sidoarjo district’s environmental and hygiene services built several new parks, one of them is Abhirama Park which was built in 2015. Abhirama Park has elements that can give visitors a sense of satisfaction to visit, so there is a need for research and there is no research on the direction of Abhirama Park. The purpose of this study was to determine the condition of Abhirama Park facilities, to find out the visitors perceptions and preferences of the facility, and to conduct the direction of the Abhirama Park arrangement based on visitors perceptions and preferences. The method of data analysis is the analysis of importance performance analysis and analysis of the design of Hamid Shirvani. The results of the analysis of Abhirama Park facility conditions contained 6 types of facilities in poor condition and 4 types of facilities in good condition. Analysis of visistor perceptions and preferences for Abhirama Park facilities resulted in 4 qudrants including quadrant I including playground and toilet facilities, quadrant II including makers (information boards) and musholla, quadrant III covering park benches and fish pond, quadrant IV covering parking lots, pedestrian, gazebo, garden lights, and trash bins. Abhirama Park arrangement of directions based on visistors perceptions and preferences are arrangement of direction for land use, arrangement of direction for circulation and parking, arrangement of direction for open space, arrangement of direction for pedestrian ways, and arrangement of direction for signage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".