MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407381673 · doi:10.20961/region.v20i1.85226

Kajian kelengkapan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang Ibu Kota Nusantara

2025· article· id· W4407381673 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Diva Assydik, Denny Zulkaidi, Andi Oetomo, Woerjantari Kartidjo Soedarsono, Ade Tinamei, Tri Rahayu Wulansari, Naimah Putri Kamilla

Bibliographic record

VenueRegion Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Perencanaan Partisipatif · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitectural and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAgricultural scienceForestryEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulasi pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang di Ibu Kota Nusantara (IKN) mengembangkan sejumlah istilah baru yang penting untuk diteliti kelengkapan dan kesesuaiannya dengan standar normatif di Indonesia agar rencana yang dituangkan dalam rencana induk dapat terimplementasikan dengan baik. Tujuan dari studi ini adalah mengidentifikasi kelengkapan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang di IKN yang digunakan untuk mewujudkan rencana pembangunan IKN. Pada studi ini metode pengambilan data dilakukan melalui desk study mengenai instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang yang ada di wilayah IKN dan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif deskriptif dengan pendekatan normatif komparatif serta metode analisis yang akan digunakan adalah analisis deskriptif, analisis konten, dan analisis komparatif antara instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang di IKN dengan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang di Indonesia. Berdasarkan hasil analisis yang dilakukan disimpulkan bahwa terdapat klasifikasi instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang di IKN yang menggunakan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang nasional, instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang khusus IKN setara dengan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang nasional dan instrumen pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang khusus IKN.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegion Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Perencanaan PartisipatifSame topicArchitectural and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207