Analisis Efisiensi Energi antara Lampu LED dan Lampu Konvensional (Studi kasus: Pada Hotel Cap Karoso)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lampu LED merupakan salah satu contoh metode efisiensi dari lampu konvensional karena hasil efisiensi energinya yang lebih tinggi. Pada penelitian ini dilakukan analisis perbandingan efisiensi listrik antara lampu LED dan lampu konvensional. Penelitian ini mengumpulkan data dari sejumlah lampu yang digunakan pada studi perbandingan lampu LED dan lampu konvensional pada Hotel Cap Karoso dan diuji dalam kondisi yang sama. Jenis lampu LED yang digunakan adalah recessed downlight, track light, pendant light dan wall scone. Sementara jenis lampu konvensional yang digunakan adalah incandescent, halogen, fluorescent dan HID. Dilakukan perbandingan dan perhitungan dari sisi energi watt dan biaya listrik. Berdasarkan parameter tersebut dapat dilihat energi yang dihasilkan dan biaya yang dibutuhkan dari kedua jenis lampu LED dan lampu konvensional. Berdasarkan perhitungan dan perbandingan kedua jenis lampu yang digunakan, didapatkan perhitungan bahwa lampu LED dapat menghemat energi dan penghematan biaya sebesar 27%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".