Feasibility and Development Strategies for Mangrove Fruit-Based Products in Karawang, West Java
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the feasibility of processing mangrove fruit into various processed products and the priority of developing mangrove fruit processing into various products.The research method uses a survey method by interviewing all members of the Joint Business Group (JBG).This research also interviewed and conducted Focused Group Discussions (FGD) with the government, universities, and social community institutions with a total of 20 people.Data analysis using revenue-cost ratio (R-C ratio) analysis, Break-Even Point analysis (BEP), and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).The results showed that: (1) All processed products: dodol, syrup, jam, candy, and soap deserve to be developed with their respective revenue-cost ratio values of 1.2581, 1.4814, 1.2798, 1.8122, and 1.2142; (2) BEP revenue (Rp) for each product: dodol, syrup, jam, candy, and soap, respectively: 14,786.00;11,131.13;12,890.15;6,451.28;and 16,065.51;while BEP production (units) of each dodol product, syrup, candy, jam, and soap in a row: 0.161; 0.696; 0.4297; 0.08; and 0.5354; while BEP price (Rp/unit) of dodol, syrup, candy, jam, and soap products, respectively: 91,838.51;15,993.00;29,998.02;80,641.00;and 29,750.94;(3) Dodol is a product that is prioritized in its development.Dodol product development is prioritized by paying more attention to product quality.Future research will address economic viability in greater depth, market dynamics, potential risks, and scalability.Further research involves partnerships between micro, small, and medium enterprises, collaborating with food experts, health experts, and tourism experts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".