Formative evaluation of policies and consistency of development planning on the smoothness of the supply chain and its implications on the level of welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formative policy evaluation is an assessment process carried out periodically during policy implementation to ensure that the policy is running according to the expected objectives. Consistency in development planning includes continuity and harmony between short-, medium- and long-term plans. A smooth supply chain refers to the effectiveness and efficiency of the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers. The level of community welfare is measured through economic, social and health indicators. This research aims to analyze the influence of formative policy evaluation and consistency of development planning on the smooth running of the supply chain and its implications for the level of community welfare in Kebumen. This research uses quantitative methods with survey techniques involving respondents from various related sectors in Kebumen. Data was collected through questionnaires and in-depth interviews, then analyzed using statistical methods to test the proposed hypotheses. The research results show that formative evaluation of policies and consistency of development planning have a positive and significant influence on the smooth running of the supply chain. Apart from that, a smooth supply chain has been proven to contribute significantly to increasing the level of welfare of the people of Kebumen. These findings underline the importance of continuous formative evaluation and consistent development planning to support supply chain efficiency and improve community welfare. The implication of this research is the need for the Kebumen regional government to strengthen policy evaluation mechanisms and maintain consistency in development planning to ensure a smooth supply chain which ultimately improves community welfare.
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 | 0.079 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".