MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382895421 · doi:10.55681/jige.v4i2.795

INVESTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PT HARDAYA MINING ENERGY SEBAKIS ON SITE COAL LABORATORY IN 2022

2023· article· en· W4382895421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken Ken, Febrianto Febrianto, Ali Ridho

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL ILMIAH GLOBAL EDUCATION · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal rate of returnCoalProcurementNet present valueInvestment (military)Payback periodValue (mathematics)Return on investmentTonneOperations managementQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringBusinessFinanceAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsWaste managementMathematicsStatisticsGeographyManagementMicroeconomicsProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PT Hardaya Mining Energy (PT HME) as a coal supplier in Indonesia with a quantity of 3 million Metric Tons (MT) per year is still testing coal samples by sending a large number of samples per day to PT Sucofindo Tarakan Branch and also other PT Sucofindo Branches in the Kalimantan region which costs a lot of additional shipping costs and makes the certificate issuance time long, so PT HME plans to work with PT Sucofindo Tarakan Branch to procure PT HME On Site coal laboratory. The purpose of this study is to assess the financial feasibility of PT HME's On Site laboratory procurement investment. Quantitative descriptive research method is used in this research to find the amount of investment feasibility value based on the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Payback Ratio (PP), and Break Event Point (BEP) formulas. The results of this study show an NPV value greater than zero, the IRR value is at a percentage of 55%, PP produces a value of 0.81 years or 9.76 months, and has a BEP value that increases every year. Thus, PT HME's on-site coal laboratory investment is feasible.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJURNAL ILMIAH GLOBAL EDUCATIONSame topicManagement and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207