Pengaruh Objek Wisata Taman Hewan Terhadap Pengembangan Wilayah Kota Pematangsiantar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisis Pengaruh Objek Wisata Taman Hewan Terhadap Pengembangan Wilayah Kota Pematangsiantar. Keberhasilan pengembangan wilayah membutuhkan dukungan semua masyarakat. Populasi penelitian ini adalah penduduk masyarakat kecamatan Siantar Utara berjumlah 46.613 jiwa. Dengan mengggunakan rumus penarikan sampel, maka sampel penelitian sebesar 96 orang. Penelitian ini menggunakan regresi sederhana, metode analisis dan pengujian hipotesis. Penelitian ini memberikan informasi bahwa obyek wisata memiliki pengaruh terhadap pengembangan wilayah. Pengolahan data dilakukan dengan menggumpulkan data hasil kuesioner dan pengolahannya menggunakan SPSS. Dari hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa pengaruh obyek wisata terhadap pengembangan wilayah sebesar 0,325 atau 32,5 %. Jadi dapat disimpulkan bahwa obyek wisata mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap pengembangan wilaya di Kecamatan Siantar Utara. Penelitian ini memberikan sumbangan pemikiran dan saran kepada Pemerintah Kecamatan Siantar Utara bahwa pengembangan wilayah membutuhkan dukungan penuh dari Pemerintah Kota Pematangsiantar
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.007 |
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".