DESIGN THINKING SEBAGAI METODE PERANCANGAN LOGO PERAYAAN ULANG TAHUN KOTA MAKASSAR 416 TAHUN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design Thinking as The Method for Designing the Logo of Makassar City’s 416th Anniversary. A city's birthday party is a representation of enthusiasm and appeal in a series one year earlier. The general government will issue a logo as a visual element of the celebration attribute. The city's birthday celebration becomes an annual event for the city community and a space for casual communication together. The published logo will become a celebration of communication identity as well as a space for public expression. This design will aim to create an appropriate visual identity to represent expectations and as a forum for wider public expression. Design thinking is a structure of thinking and acting in producing solutions or policies. This method precipitates the process of empathy and reframing in determining the ideas produced. In the process of designing expressions and expectations are found as insights in realizing a visual identity which is then derived in the form of a logo. The visual identity of Makassar City's 416th anniversary celebration brings togetherness and innovation as a theme. This is also a message contained in communications to the public. A good visual identity can motivate people to be more participatory in urban changes in the future. Keywords: logo, visual identity, city anniversary, design thinking, Makassar city
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it