MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402065276 · doi:10.58411/b1nsfj04

PENGUKURAN INDIKATOR PROGRAM PEMBANGUNAN BIDANG SOSIAL KOTA MALANG TAHUN 2022

2023· article· id· W4402065276 on OpenAlexaff
Ucca Arawindha, Atu Bagus Wiguna, Zakaria

Bibliographic record

VenuePANGRIPTA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pengukuran Indikator Pembangunan Bidang Sosial Kota Malang dilakukan untuk dapat mengukur capaian indikator kinerja program bidang sosial pada tahun 2021 dan tahun 2022 hingga triwulan dua, review target indikator pembangunan bidang sosial yang telah ditetapkan, menyajikan data-data indikator sosial, dan dapat memberikan rekomendasi kebijakan serta langkah-langkah yang perlu dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Kota Malang berdasarkan hasil kajian. Terdapat 23 (dua puluh tiga) program P-RPJMD dan 54 (lima puluh empat) indikator pada bidang sosial yang sesuai dengan perangkat daerah terkait. Pengukuran indikator program pembangunan bidang sosial ini memiliki teknik analisis pengukuran capaian indikator bidang sosial, pengukuran efektivitas capaian target, pengelompokan tingkat efektivitas capaian target, dan identifikasi faktor determinan pelaksanaan program. Hasil dari analisis tersebut menunjukkan bahwa sejumlah 80% indikator telah memiliki tingkat efektivitas yang sangat tinggi di tahun 2021. Efektivitas tersebut meningkat dari tahun sebelumnya dengan selisih 23%. Akan tetapi masih terdapat 3 (tiga) indikator yang memiliki tingkat efektivitas sangat rendah dan 2 (dua) indikator memiliki tingkat efektivitas rendah.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePANGRIPTASame topicEconomic Growth and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207