Analisis Implementasi Kebijakan Pengelolaan Sampah Di Provinsi Dki Jakarta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The waste problem can be seen from the significant increase in the volume of waste every year, poor waste management and the low public hygiene habit in big cities, including Jakarta. This study aims to analyze the implementation of Jakarta's waste management policies according to Regional Regulation Number 4 of 2019. This study uses a descriptive qualitative approach to obtain comprehensive information about the implementation of existing regional regulations. The results show that the implementation of Jakarta's waste management policies has not been implemented well. There are several obstacles such as a large budget but not used optimally, a lack of coordination between the government and private sector to build Intermediate Treatment Facilities (ITF) because there is a regional politic factor. Several programs such as a waste bank, 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle), and “Sampah Tanggung Jawab Bersama (Samtawa) are expected to be able to overcome the waste problem in Jakarta. These programs need to be delivered through socialization to urban villages, schools, and PKK (Program Keluarga Sejahtera).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.001 |
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 it