[no title]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of tourist villages is an effective way for the growth and development of the rural economy which has an impact on increasing people's welfare. This research aims to make a baseline survey in the development of Api-Api Tourism Village, Bangun Mulya Tourism Village, and Rozeline Flower Park. The method used for this research is qualitative with data triangulation with respect to data sources in verifying/re-examining existing research data, using a Participation Action Research (PAR) approach including baseline surveys, documentation, and Focus Group Discussions (FGD). . The data collected was then analyzed by assessing the feasibility study of the tourism business through 7 ADWI assessment categories. The result of this program is the feasibility of the Tourism Village in North Penajam Paser based on the survey (Baseline Survey) that has been conducted. The results of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 3 places in North Penajam Paser namely Api-Api Village, Bangun Mulya Village and Rozeline Flower Park have the potential to be developed to become tourist villages and tourist attractions, but need attention, assistance and guidance from the government as well as academics.
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 | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".