Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyse the model of disaster communication carried out by the government, especially the Karangasem Regency Public Relations, toward the communities impacted by the eruption of Mount Agung to lessen the risk of disaster. This research applied qualitative descriptive research with a case study method. The case study method specifically looked at the context of disaster communication in the Mount Agung eruption disaster in Bali in 2017. To obtain in-depth data, a focus group discussion and in-depth interviews were carried out as data collection techniques and the data analysis technique used the Miles and Huberman model. The results revealed that the government’s communication model of Mount Agung disaster management worked together with the community through PASEBAYA. The synergy communication model had effectively handled the Mount Agung eruption disaster, considering that disaster management should involve communication, information, coordination, and cooperation. The communication synergy model was carried out by delivering messages in disaster communication from the government to the community to quickly and accurately reach disaster victims and information related to the appeal to use traditional and technology media to evacuate in safe areas, with evacuation locations and order to bring only essential items when evacuated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".