Implementasi Sister City dalam Menanggulangi Isu Lingkungan Hidup: Studi Kasus Kendari dan La Rochelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine the form of sister city cooperation carried out by the Kendari City Government and Communauté D'Agglomération De La Rochelle in 2015-2018. This research uses qualitative research methods, by collecting data and information from sources through interviews and literature study. The results indicate a form of collaboration carried out by the Kendari City Government and Communauté D'Angglomération De La Rochelle, namely the exchange of information in the form of sending experts and training. In the clean water services field, the form of cooperation was to increase the production and network of drinking water in the Kendari City area by carrying out a pilot project for the provision of drinking water for 24 hours / day and can be drunk immediately. In the city hygiene management field, the form of cooperation focused on sorting and managing waste in Kendari City. From the sister city collaboration, there were increasement in the experts’ skill and knowledge in Kendari City.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".