Readiness of Disability-Friendly Services in Religious Institutions: A Case Study of the Yogyakarta City Ministry of Religious Office
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to analyze the availability of facilities for persons with disabilities as well as the challenges in implementing accessible spaces and facilities at the Yogyakarta City Office of the Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kankemenag of Yogyakarta City). This study used a qualitative approach by exploring the social situation related to providing disability-friendly public services in religious institutions. The collected data, both primary and secondary, were analyzed using Miles Huberman's analysis. Based on the observations, Kankemenag of Yogyakarta City provided adequate facilities for persons with disabilities. Some of the facilities available include toilets for the diffable (a person who is differently abled), visitor parking, special service counters, guiding blocks, downhill fields, and wheelchairs. The supporting factors of Kankemenag of Yogyakarta City can provide facilities for service users sourced from internal and external factors. The internal supporting factor found in the field is the commitment and mindset of the head from the Chief to the service officers. Meanwhile, the external factors supporting this case are more about the obligation to meet the requirements to achieve the xcellent Service title. The Ontario Human Rights Commission developed the barriers factor in providing facilities for those with special needs in public service, which consists of attitudinal, architectural, and informational barriers. The diverse scope of the study is strongly recommended to provide a broader picture of providing facilities for persons with disabilities in various places. This study is expected to improve public services in government agencies that are fair and equitable for all levels of society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".