Teknik Reklamasi Area Bekas Tambang Tanah Urug Sebagai Pertanian Lahan Kering di Dusun Kaligondang, Kalurahan Temon Wetan, Kapanewon Temon, Kabupaten Kulon Progo, DIY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kegiatan penambangan di Dusun Kaligondang, Kalurahan Temon Wetan sudah berlangsung sejak tahun 2017lalu, hingga saat ini berhenti beroperasi dengan tanpa adanya upaya reklamasi yang dilakukan. Akibat darikegiatan penambangan tersebut terjadi perubahan bentuk lahan dan mengakibatkan lahan tersebut menjadi tidakproduktif. Adapun penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi lahan area bekas tambang sebagai pertanianlahan kering dan menentukan arahan teknis reklamasi. Metode yang diterapkan dalam penelitian adalahkuantitatif deskriptif yang meliputi observasi dan pemetaan lapangan, analisis laboratorium, dan evaluasi denganmetode pencocokan (matching). Analisis laboratorium yang dilakukan berupa uji kimia tanah. Hasil evaluasilahan didapatkan bahwa area bekas tambang dapat ditanami tanaman pertanian lahan kering yaitu ubi kayu, ubijalar, dan kacang tanah. Upaya pengelolaan lahan dilakukan dengan pembuatan jenjang dengan tinggi 6 meterdan kemiringan 45° dengan backslope 2° dan pembuatan saluran drainase pada tiap jenjang.Kata Kunci: Evaluasi Lahan; Penambangan; Pertanian Lahan Kering; Reklamasi
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".