MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410837232 · doi:10.21009/jsg.v3i1.05

Analisis Spasial Daya Dukung Lahan Permukiman Di Kota Sentani

2025· article· id· W4410837232 on OpenAlexaff
Harry Hardian Sakti

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Sains Geografi · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitectural and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pertumbuhan penduduk perkotaan yang terus meningkat menimbulkan dampak spasial yang serius bagi kehidupan kota, terutama dengan meningkatnya kebutuhan akan tempat tinggal atau permukiman, yang berpotensi terjadinya ketidakseimbangan kemampuan lahan permukiman. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis spasial daya dukung lahan permukiman di Kota Sentani dengan mengukur besaran luas lahan permukiman dan data jumlah penduduk. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa luas lahan permukiman di Kota Sentani pada tahun 2023 mencapai 704.874,57 m², sementara jumlah penduduk sebanyak 73.927 jiwa. Nilai Daya Dukung Lahan Permukiman (DDPm) yang diperoleh sebesar 0,36 m²/kapita, yang menunjukkan bahwa daya dukung lahan di Kota Sentani tergolong rendah dan tidak mampu menampung kebutuhan penduduk dengan layak. Faktor utama yang memengaruhi kondisi ini adalah alih fungsi lahan yang tidak terkendali, distribusi infrastruktur yang tidak merata, serta keterbatasan lahan akibat kawasan konservasi Pegunungan Cycloop dan Danau Sentani. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat mendukung perencanaan tata ruang berbasis daya dukung lahan secara berkelanjutan dan mencegah dampak negatif pembangunan, seperti degradasi lingkungan dan risiko bencana. Dengan demikian, hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat menjadi dasar kebijakan dalam pengelolaan dan pengembangan wilayah Kota Sentani secara bijaksana dan berkelanjutan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueJurnal Sains GeografiSame topicArchitectural and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207