Investigating the communication network for batik village tourism stakeholders to support smart economy in Bogor regency, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unequal development is a major factor in measuring Indonesia's poverty problem, resulting in areas that are left behind. It is a primary concern of the government and stakeholders since it is unresolved and will lead to more problems in the community. Therefore, the government and stakeholders conduct various village developments to prosper the community. One is Batik village in Kemang, Bogor Regency, Indonesia. The Pakuan University of Bogor initiated the village development program. The collaboration forms a communication network and communication patterns to facilitate the delivery of messages. This study aims to identify and analyze the communication network pattern of stakeholders in the development of Kampung Batik in Kemang, Bogor Regency, Indonesia. This study is designed using a qualitative approach through interviews with relevant stakeholders. The communication network was analyzed using Sociometric Analysis through UCINET VI. The result indicates that the relationship between actors in the development of Kampung Batik is 75.5 percent and categorized as quite strong. Also, the communication pattern formed is an all-channel pattern with five actors who act as the star, bridge, opinion leader, liaison, cosmopolite, and isolate. This model supports the smart economy's potential to develop a smart village.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".