STUDI KOMPARASI PEDOMAN DESAIN SEBAGAI REFERENSI INOVASI DAN DESAIN BENDUNGAN BETON GRAVITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete gravity dams continued to develop in Indonesia even though the population is still smaller than embankment dams. Until 2021 there consist of 16 concrete gravity dams or about 7% of all dams in Indonesia. The utilization of concrete gravity dams in Indonesia is 75% for hydropower or as many as 12 dams. Concrete gravity dam is a high-risk structure so the design of concrete gravity dams must be referred to the guidelines where applicable in Indonesia and internationally with approval from Dam Safety Organization. In Indonesia, the construction of concrete gravity dams cannot be separated from the participation of design consultants from developed countries such as the UK, Japan, US, Canada, Korea, and China. Indonesian Water Resource Guidelines 2009 is formal reference that must be adhered to by all design and construction planners in Indonesia, so that designs that refer to the guidelines and manuals from foreign countries must go through a comparison and evaluation process to meet the design acceptance criteria in accordance with the Indonesian Water Resource Guidelines 2009. Comparison processes include load conditions, design concepts, seismic analysis methods, stability and stress analysis methods, and stability and stress acceptance criteria. As a results of comparison, we can get information that the Indonesian Water Resource Guidelines 2009 apply stability and stress acceptance criteria more conservative. As consequence, the investment cost for the construction of concrete gravity dams in Indonesia is becoming more expensive.Keywords: dams, concrete gravity, guidelines, comparation, stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".