Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan
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
This This study aims to determine the participation of the community in Kampung Getentiri, Jair District, Boven Digoel Regency in Development Planning Meetings. Observational techniques, interviews, and documentation were used to collect data. The collected data was analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The study found that although Musrembang had been conducted and generated enthusiasm among most of the community who are mostly farmers, community participation in Musrembang was still lacking. Inter-community relations were not communicative enough, and there was a lack of active involvement in providing suggestions. In terms of tokenism, the community participated in Musrembang to give their input and opinions on development plans, but the feedback provided was only formal and not followed up, giving the government greater control over development programs. This highlights the need to strengthen community participation in the planning and implementation of development, ensuring that their feedback is not merely a formality but also taken into consideration in decision-making. Furthermore, in terms of the community's power in development planning in Kampung Getentiri, the community has power in development planning. They are involved directly in the initial meetings with the village head and Musrembang and are enthusiastic about providing input. The results of Musrembang give the community authority to participate in implementing development programs, although they are still monitored by the village authorities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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