Conceptual Model Implementation of Poverty Reduction Policy in Medan City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the conceptual model implementation of poverty reduction policy in Medan city.This type of research uses qualitative methods.The paradigm in this qualitative research is constructivism.This means that individuals construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world also construct reality in accordance with the results of the construction of the individuals studied.This research was conducted with a qualitative approach.The results of this study found that Medan City Government and stakeholders have not optimally carried out their roles and functions and have been unable to formulate an effective poverty alleviation policy model so that the average percentage of the poverty rate in Medan City exceeds the national average poverty rate.The poverty alleviation policy model cannot be carried out without first mapping the potential and targets of the poor.to measure the performance of policy implementation must emphasize specific standards and targets that must be achieved by policy implementers because policy performance is basically an assessment of the level of achievement of these standards and targets.Poverty reduction in the city of Medan has not been able to meet the standards set by the regulations, but on the other hand, the policy objectives can already be felt by the community.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".