The Impact of Indonesia’s Village Fund (Dana Desa) on Village Head Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the implementation of the Village Law in 2014, the Indonesian government seeks to promote rural development and village autonomy by decentralizing power. The 2014 Village Law has two important points: the village fund and the extension of a village head’s term. This article tested to what extent the village fund has impacted the village head election and whether the village fund has improved villagers’ political participation in running for the village head election. The method used in this study is quantitative through a survey of 96 random village head candidates in the 2016 village head election in 117 villages in Banjar Regency, South Kalimantan. The findings show that the village funds have an impact on the quality of the nomination of village heads and facilitate the public’s involvement in the election. This phenomenon underscores the importance of village funds in encouraging democratic practices and the grassroots community’s participation in village governance. Changes in regulations of village fund implementation influence the participation of village residents in running for village head election, encouraging them to participate in the democratic process at the village level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".