Drafting and Implementation of Village Spatial Plan (RTRDes): A Case Study in Indonesia
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 ongoing development exerting spatial pressure on the village area poses a threat to the survival of rural communities today.This development often treats the village as an object of exploitation, sparking tenure conflicts and contributing to natural disasters in the village.Village spatial planning is needed to bolster the village's position.Moreover, the territorial aspect of the village greatly contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).While rules regarding village spatial planning are not yet established in Indonesia, several villages have initiated the preparation of Village Spatial Plans within their communities.The purpose of this study is to analyze the preparation and implementation of Village Spatial Plans in villages that have already undertaken this initiative.This research aims to illustrate the importance of a village having a spatial plan, hoping that the results can serve as material for policy formulation related to village spatial management in Indonesia.This research was conducted in 10 villages across 6 districts and 6 provinces in Indonesia.The study used a qualitative descriptive method with data collection through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).The results indicated that community participation and mentoring support from external parties well-versed in spatial planning are crucial in the preparation and implementation of Village Spatial Plans.The existence of Village Spatial Plans provides economic, social, and environmental benefits.Apart from being a tool to clarify the identity of village potential, a Village Spatial Plan also serves as a mechanism to increase the value of that potential.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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