MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402951863 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.190914

Transforming Smart City Governance for Quality of Life and Sustainable Development in Semarang City, Indonesia

2024· article· en· W4402951863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Aisyah, Zainur Hidayah, Dedy Juniadi, Eko Priyo Purnomo, A.M. Wibowo, Ridho Harta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentSmart cityBusinessCorporate governanceEnvironmental planningQuality of life (healthcare)Sustainable cityEconomic growthGeographyPolitical scienceEngineeringInternet of ThingsEconomicsFinancePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study seeks to thoroughly understand the catalysts driving Semarang, one of Indonesia's cities, to become a smart city, with the ultimate goal of improving the long-term well-being of its citizens.Driven by the various barriers that exist in urban development, we begin with a thorough examination of the causes influencing this shift, focusing on the critical role played by Semarang's local government.Semarang, with its rich history and environmental challenges, provides a distinct case study of urban life in Indonesia.Our research used a diverse approach to unravel the rich narrative of Semarang's evolution, including interviews and observational analysis.Our findings highlight the function of the local government in crafting concepts of sustainable development, innovation and community engagement into Semarang's urban planning framework to aid its transition to a smart city.Key drivers of this transition include the development of local regulations, government readiness, and stakeholder collaboration.While seemingly small, these efforts have had a tremendous impact on human progress, providing important insights for the community.This study needs to continue with comparisons with other cities, we want to learn about lessons that can be used to optimize urban ecosystems around the world, ensuring that the quality of life for all citizens improves.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207