IMPACT OF ABRATION ON LAND USE IN COASTAL AREA BULELENG REGENCY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal damage due to abrasion and wave erosion in Buleleng Regency is very potential, even information from the Buleleng Regency Marine Service released information that the length of the coast in Buleleng Regency which has been damaged is not less than 5 km. Abrasion and wave erosion resulting in erosion of the coastline and will continue to affect land use. In this study using quantitative methods with analysis stages consisting of, among others, land use and analysis of the impact of abrasion on land use. The analysis carried out is a Geographic Information System (GIS) based analysis in accordance with the needs of the research in spatial terms. The conclusions obtained from this study are the types of land use that exist in the Coastal District of Buleleng Regency are in the form of airports, lakes / reservoirs, forests, mangroves, stretches of beach sand, ports, plantations / gardens, paddy fields, rivers, moor and shrubs. The abrasion that occurs in the Coastal Zone of Buleleng Regency every year with vulnerability during 2013 - 2019 has an impact on land use changes. This can be seen through the results of overlapping overlay analysis and seeing the area of land use that has changed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".