MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410260717 · doi:10.55448/mr454h18

Analisis Perubahan Dinamika Abrasi dan Akresi Garis Pantai di Kota Kupang Berbasis Teknologi Penginderaan Jauh

2025· article· id· W4410260717 on OpenAlexaff
Nessa N. Nawa, Amandus Jong Tallo, Antonius Leonardo Antjak, Yunus Fallo

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Ekologi Masyarakat dan Sains · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater and Land Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shorelines are dynamic and perpetually evolving due to hydro-oceanographic variables and anthropogenic activity, which influence the processes of erosion and deposition. This study seeks to quantify shoreline alterations and examine the extent of erosion and deposition in coastal Kupang City by employing remote sensing technologies on Landsat image datasets from 2014, 2018, and 2023, obtained from USGS, in conjunction with Geographic Information System (GIS). Analytical methods were implemented via the Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) within GIS. The results indicated that alterations manifested as abrasion and accretion with differing magnitudes. From 2014 to 2018 and from 2018 to 2023, notable alterations transpired, with the maximum erosion value attaining -37.98 m in the Kelapa Lima sub-district and the peak deposition measuring 187.09 m in the Kota Lama sub-district. From 2014 to 2018, the regions impacted by abrasion in Kelapa Lima, Kota Lama, and Alak measured 4.01 hectares, 0.63 hectares, and 1.24 hectares, respectively. This technology enables the management and analysis of visual data, offering great temporal resolution, cost-effectiveness, and extensive coverage.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Ekologi Masyarakat dan SainsSame topicWater and Land ManagementFrench-language works237,207