Collaborative Governance dalam Menciptakan Branding Kota Surakarta Sebagai Kota Festival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Festival activities are carried out as part of tourism promotion to market Surakarta City so that it can compete with other cities in the world in attracting investment, attracting tourists, and so on. It is necessary to identify the urban development plans carried out by the City of Surakarta, describe the roles of various actors from various sectors in the successful implementation of festival activities in the City of Surakarta, and explain the governance shape used in the City of Surakarta. The method used is descriptive and explanatory research with a qualitative approach to describe the development plans for the City of Surakarta and describe the integrative framework in Collaborative Governance that occurs in organising festival activities. The result of this research is the development plan for Surakarta City is to carry out city branding as a Festival City with a specific theme, namely its culture and the success of its implementation is the result of the collaboration of various actors from various sectors with their respective roles which an integrative framework model for Collaborative Governance can describe. This study concluded that Collaborative Governance is a governance shape carried out in Surakarta's city development planning. Collaborative Governance is considered a very good thing that impacts the economic and social community and cultural preservation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".