MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313184267 · doi:10.55719/mv.v4i2.466

PENGELOMPOKAN KEBUTUHAN JUMLAH AIR AKIBAT KEKERINGAN DI KABUPATEN TUBAN PADA TAHUN 2020 DENGAN ALGORITMA K-MEANS

2022· article· id· W4313184267 on OpenAlexaff
Kurniawan Indra Jaya, Lilik Muzdalifah

Bibliographic record

VenueMathvision Jurnal Matematika · 2022
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bencana Kekeringan di Kabupaten Tuban terjadi hampir setiap tahun. Bencana kekeringan jika dibiarkan dapat berdampak besar bagi kehidupan. Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah (BPBD) Kabupaten Tuban merupakan instansi pemerintah yang bertugas menanggulangi bencana tersebut. Bencana kekeringan dapat diatasi dengan pengelolaan pemenuhan pasokan air yang efektif dan efesien. Untuk itu, pada kegiatan Praktik Kerja Lapangan (PKL) kelompok kami mengangkat masalah Pengelompokan kebutuhan jumlah liter air berdasarkan wilayah desa yang terdampak. Pengelompokan ini dibagi menjadi tiga kelompok, yaitu kelompok kebutuhan air tinggi, kelompok kebutuhan air sedang, dan kelompok kebutuhan air rendah. Terdapat 10 desa yang termasuk dalam kelompok kebutuhan air tinggi atau C3. Jumlah liter air yang dibutuhkan desa tersebut antara 119.000 liter sampai dengan 126.000 liter air. Terdapat 9 desa yang termasuk kedalam kelompok kebutuhan air sedang atau C2. Jumlah liter air yang dibutuhkan desa tersebut antara 84.000 liter sampai dengan 105.000 liter air. Dan terdapat 4 desa yang termasuk kedalam kelompok kebutuhan air yang rendah atau C1. Jumlah liter air yang dibutuhkan desa tersebut antara 42.000 liter air.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathvision Jurnal MatematikaSame topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207