MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390992845 · doi:10.26418/uniplan.v4i2.72192

Faktor-Faktor Kerentanan dan Upaya Mitigasi Bencana Banjir di Sub-Daerah Aliran Sungai, Kasus: Kecamatan Tangse, Kabupaten Pidie

2023· article· id· W4390992845 on OpenAlexaff
Elysa Wulandari, Ayu Maya Sari, Farisa Sabila

Bibliographic record

VenueUNIPLAN Journal of Urban and Regional Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimedia Learning Systems
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kecamatan Tangse adalah salah satu kecamatan di Kabupaten Pidie yang berada pada Pengunungan Bukit Barisan dengan kondisi karakteristik topografi wilayah berkontur yang beragam menjadikan Tangse memiliki daerah akumulasi genangan (cekungan) sehingga Kecamatan Tangse menjadi daerah rawan bencana banjir. Banjir menyebabkan korban jiwa, kerugian material dan rusaknya infrastruktur. Tujuan penelitian ini yaitu mengetahui faktor-faktor kerentanan bencana banjir di Kecamatan Tangse Kabupaten Pidie dan upaya mitigasi bencana banjir. Jenis penelitian yang dilakukan yaitu kualitatif deskriptif dengan menggunakan variabel kerentanan (fisik, sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan). Menggunakan metode analisis skala likert dengan pendekatan rasionalisme bersumber pada teori dan kebenaran empirik. Hasil dari penelitian ditemukan 7 faktor yang berpengaruh secara signifikan ialah faktor curah hujan (10,7%), kelerengan (8,8%), lokasi atau jarak rumah ke sungai (8,7%), selanjutnya di ikuti dengan faktor jenis tanah, kondisi sungai, kepadatan bangunan, dan material bangunan. Upaya mitigasi yang dilakukan dalam bentuk mitigasi non struktural dan mitigasi struktural.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 venueUNIPLAN Journal of Urban and Regional PlanningSame topicMultimedia Learning SystemsFrench-language works237,207