MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387984510 · doi:10.47349/jbi/19022023/145

Studi Etnobotani dalam Makanan Tradisional Nasi Liwet, Hidangan Khas Sunda di Kecamatan Mustikajaya, Bekasi

2023· article· en· W4387984510 on OpenAlexaff
Liana Seftiyani Simanullang

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Biologi Indonesia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalayEthnobotanyEthnic groupGeographySocial scienceSociologyTraditional medicineAnthropologyMedicinal plantsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional food is food consumed by a particular community, reflecting the local potential and wisdom, as well as a distinctive flavor accepted by that community. Typically, traditional food is characterized by the characteristics of a region, the values within that region, the manifestation of regional culture, specificity, and the natural potential of each area. Mustikajaya District, Bekasi City, is still predominantly inhabited by the Sundanese people, followed by the Javanese, Malay, and Batak ethnic groups. Consequently, there are still many traditional Sundanese foods distributed and sold in the Mustikajaya District, one of which is Nasi Liwet, a traditional Sundanese dish. Ethnobotanical studies on the traditional Sundanese food, Nasi Liwet, have not been conducted, especially in the Mustikajaya District, Bekasi. This research aims to provide information on the biodiversity used as spices and complementary ingredients. It then connects these ethnobotanical studies with the processing and cultural presentation of Nasi Liwet, as well as the philosophy and historical value of this traditional Sundanese dish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 Biologi IndonesiaSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207