Peranan Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah dalam Penyusunan Rencana Kerja Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Simeulue 2022
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 Regional Development Work Plan (RKPD) is the elaboration of the Regional Medium-Term Development (RPJMD)for aperiod of 1(one) year, which contains the design of the regional economic framework. Priority for regional development is the work plan and its funding, both those implemented directly by encouraging community particion. Referringto the RKPD then becomes a guideline for the preparation of the Regional Revenue and (RAPBD). This study aims to analyze the role of Bappeda in the preparation of the Simeulue District Regional Development Work plan (RKPD) in 2022 and the inhibiting factors. This research is a descriptive qualitative research using primary data where the data is obtained from interviews with informants, and the authors researched at the Regional Development planning Agency (Bappeda) of Simeulue Regency which is located on Jalan Teuku Diujung Air Cold Village, East Simeulue District, Simeulue Regency. Based on the results of the study, it shows that the Bappeda of Simeulue Regency in its role as the Preparation of the Simeulue Regency Regional Development work Plan (RKPD) for 2022 has not been carried out very well, because it is influenced by inhibiting factors such as the slow submission of the required data, the lack of Local Origin Opinions (PAD), and lack of Transfers to Regional Funds (TKDD).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 it