STUDI TENTANG JALUR EVAKUASI TERHADAP BAHAYA KEBAKARAN PADA BANGUNAN MALL (STUDI KASUS : MILAN KOPO MALL, BANDUNG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kebakaran merupakan suatu bencana yang merugikan, baik dari segi fisik maupun materi. Belakangan ini kasus kebakaran masih tinggi di Kota Bandung bahkan salah satunya kebakaran terjadi pada bangunan publik yaitu pusat perbelanjaan atau mall. Pada kasus kebakaran ini akan dilakukan studi mengenai jalur evakuasi terkait desain yang diterapkan terhadap bahaya kebakaran. Permasalahan yang diteliti oleh penulis adalah mengidentifikasi jalur evakuasi dan membandingkan standar jalur evakuasi menurut NFPA 101 dan SNI tahun 2000 & 2001. Metode penelitian yang digunakan berupa metode deskriptif kuantitatif, dengan tahapan survei, dokumentasi, mendesain, mengukur, dan mengkomparasi data. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa masih ada permasalahan di lapangan terhadap jalur evakuasi di Miko Mall, Bandung. Komparasi standar pada penelitian ini dilakukan pada komparasi tangga evakuasi dan pintu darurat, komparasi titik kumpul, komparasi jarak antar tangga darurat, dan komparasi tanda arah evakuasi (signage). Hasil akhir menjelaskan bahwa hampir seluruh variabel jalur evakuasi di Milan Kopo Mall, Bandung memenuhi standar NFPA 101 dan SNI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".