Policy framework for updating and utilizing poverty data using MULTIPOL method in Bekasi Regency, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty is a complex and multidimensional social problem faced by almost all countries including Indonesia. Poverty alleviation efforts require accurate and up-to-date data to ensure that social welfare programs can effectively run and target appropriate beneficiaries. Bekasi Regency, as one of the regions that faces significant challenges in managing poverty, needs the right strategy in updating and utilizing poverty data to support social welfare programs. This study analyzes a policy framework for updating and utilizing the poverty data. The data were collected from focus group discussions with experts and stakeholders who were competent in updating and utilizing the poverty data. MULTIPOL method was used to analyze the data. The results of the study show that the best strategy for updating and utilizing poverty data in the scenario is to integrate scenarios with priority policy with digital budgeting policy, as well as priority actions providing incentives. This study makes an important contribution to regional development planning, especially poverty alleviation strategies based on accurate and integrative data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".