MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PREFERENCES OF RENT GARAGE OWNERS IN LOCATION SELECTION IN DALUNG VILLAGE, BADUNG REGENCY

2022· article· en· W4280577227 on OpenAlexaff
I Gusti Ngurah Eddy Suryadinata, Widiastuti Widiastuti, Ni Ketut Agusintadewi

Bibliographic record

VenueASTONJADRO · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal Management and Development
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRentingBusinessGovernment (linguistics)SanctionsSite selectionGeographyAgricultural economicsTransport engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Dalung Village, a residential development area in North Kuta District, Badung Regency, has many densely populated residential areas, yet the areas are not supported by adequate parking facilities. It is then used by the community around the residential areas to develop a rental garage business resulting in the direction of land use in Dalung Village in the current settlement designation area developing towards trade and services. This study aimed to determining the factors that become rental garage owner’s preferences in choosing the location of a rental garage related to the characteristics of land use in Dalung Village. The research method used was a qualitative method with a case study approach. Data was collected through field observations, interviews and distribution of google form questionnaires to rental garage owner’s. The results of this study indicate that the community's preference were the factor of the residential environment with lots of parking on the shoulders, the density factor of the number of vehicles that passed on public roads and environmental roads, environmental safety factors, capital and maintenance efficiency factors as well as the presence of similar businesses (rental garage) in an residential areas. The factor that made land use occurred was the lack of firmness of the Dalung village government and Badung district government in make arrangement for regional spatial planning areas and providing sanctions for violations of village spatial planning.<strong></strong></p><p> </p>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASTONJADROSame topicCoastal Management and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207