MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401154763 · doi:10.34001/ces.v4i01.438

STRUCTURAL PLANNING OF 4 FLOOR BULDING OFFICE OF HIGH PROSECUTORS, CENTRAL JAVA

2024· article· id· W4401154763 on OpenAlexaff
Dicky Alga Saputra, Purwanto Purwanto, Trias Widorini, Ngudi Hari Crista, Gama Aji Krisno

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Civil Engineering Study · 2024
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perencanaan Struktur suatu Konstruksi bangunan diperlukan untuk mendapatkan dimensi dan konfigurasi struktur yang paling efektif dan efisien. Perencanaan suatu struktur Gedung yang berada di wilayah rawan harus direncanakan sesuai standar, kuat, dan aman gempa. Perencanaan Struktur Gedung 4 Lantai Kantor Kejati Jateng, mengacu pada Persyaratan Beton Struktural untuk mengacu Bangunan Gedung dan Non Gedung (SNI 03-1726-2019) dan Beban Minimum untuk Perancangan Bangunan Gedung dan Struktur lain (SNI 03-1727-2013). Perencanaan Bangunan Struktur Gedung 4 Lantai Kantor Kejati Jateng ini meliputi perencanaan struktur atas dan struktur bawah. Perencanaan Struktur atas menggunakan SAP 2000 V14.2.2, sedangkan struktur bawah direncanakan secara manual. Struktur atas meliputi perencanaan atap, balok, kolom, dan plat lantai Gedung, sedangkan struktur bawah meliputi perencanaan pondasi. Pembebanan yang ditinjau untuk perencanaan elemen struktur adalah beban mati, beban hidup, dan beban gempa. Beban Gempa yang dimasukan adalah beban gempa dinamis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Civil Engineering StudySame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207