Community Satisfaction with Ecological Carrying Capacity and Services in an Integrated City of Lunang Silaut, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aims to determine to what extent (1) ecological carrying capacity influences the Development of the Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut, (2) ecological carrying capacity influences community satisfaction, (3) ecological carrying capacity affects the service quality of Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut, (4) development of Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut has an effect on community satisfaction, (5) the service quality has an effect on community satisfaction.The environment's carrying capacity means a place's ability to optimally support the life of living things for a long time.The research was conducted using a quantitative approach, involving 100 respondents from the community, community leaders, local government officials, academics, NGOs, and professionals.The Likert scale five questionnaires comprise 20 questions distributed proportionally to respondents.The results showed that (1) ecological carrying capacity has a positive effect on the Development of the Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut, (2) ecological carrying capacity has a positive effect on community satisfaction, (3) ecological carrying capacity has a positive effect on Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut service quality, (4) the Development of Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut has a positive effect on community satisfaction, (5) Independent Integrated City of Lunang Silaut service quality has a positive effect on community satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".