Evaluasi Penawaran pada Proses Pengadaan Jasa Konstruksi Pekerjaan Pembangunan Gudang Kapasitas 1000 Ton di Pematang Kandis Bangko
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pengembangan sarana dan prasarana yang diperlukan oleh pemerintah Kabupaten Merangin salah satunya adalah Gudang Beras Bulog. Pada Pembangunan gudang diperlukan adanya evaluasi penawaran dalam rangkaian proses.lelang karena hasil evaluasi penawaran tersebut dijadikan dasar untuk menetapkan pemenang lelang. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana pelaksanaan dan sistem penawaran pada proses pengadaan jasa kontsruksi pekerjaan Pembangunan Gudang Pekerjaan Kapasitas 1000 Ton. Metode yang digunakan dalam pengumpulan data penelitian ini adalah teknik wawancara dan kuesioner berdasarkan usia, pendidikan dan pekerjaan. Sistem penawaran dan pengadaan dijuga di analisa berdasarkan Pepres No. 4 tahun 2015. Hasil yang diperoleh berdasarkan analisa data pada tahap evaluasi administrasi didapat nilai mean 4,133, tahap evaluasi teknis didapat nilai mean 4,1, tahap evaluasi biaya didapat nilai mean 4,25 artinya responden setuju, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa evaluasi administrasi, teknis dan biaya sudah sesuai dengan.berdasarkan Perpres No. 4 tahun 2015. Berdasarkan analisa pada dokumen pengadaan jasa, sistem penawaran yang digunakan sudah sesuai dengan Perpres No. 4 tahun 2015.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".