MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244816476 · doi:10.31227/osf.io/6ektv

ANALISIS TINGKAT PELAYANAN DAN KENYAMANAN JALUR PEDESTRIAN DI JALAN GAJAH MADA, DIPONEGORO DAN PAHLAWAN BERDASARKAN PERSEPSI PENGGUNA

2019· preprint· id· W4244816476 on OpenAlexaff
Jelita Citrawati Jihan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jalan Gajah Mada, Diponegoro dan Pahlawan merupakan kawasan yang memiliki tingkat keramaian yang tinggi karena adanya pusat kegiatan perdagangan, jasa dan perkantoran di Sidoarjo. Permasalah yang terjadi di jalan tersebut adalah banyaknya parkir liar dan rusaknya jalur pedestrian. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kondisi fisik jalur pedestrian, mengetahui tingkat pelayanan serta tingkat kenyamanan berdasarkan persepsi pengguna. Metode penelitian menggunakan deskriptif kualitatif dan kuantitatif dengan teknik analisis LOS (Level Of Service) dan AHP (Analysis Hierarcy Process). Metode pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara survey lapangan, sebar kuisioner dan dokumentasi. Hasil dari penelitian ini ialah kondisi fisik jalur pedestrian di Jalan Gajah Mada, Diponegoro dan Pahlawan telah sesuai dengan pedoman. Jika ditinjau dari tingkat pelayanan Jalan Gajah Mada tergolong tingkat B, sedangkan Jalan Diponegoro dan Pahlawan tergolong tingkat pelayanan A. Para pengguna merasa aman dan nyaman saat berjalan di jalur pedestrian Jalan Gajah Mada, Diponegoro dan Pahlawan. Arahan pengembangan untuk jalur pedestrian berdasarkan hasil AHP yaitu alternatif 1 (satu) relokasi area parkir agar tidak menggunakan jalur pedestrian 40,8%, alternatif 2 (dua) Perbaikan kondisi fisik jalur pedestrian 42% dan alternatif 3 (tiga) Peningkatan keterseediaan elemen pendukung jalur pedestrian 17,2%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207