ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN PENGUKURAN JARAK MENGGUNAKAN THEODOLITE DAN WATERPASS PADA MEDAN MIRING (SLOPE) DI AKMIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pelaksanaan tugas pokok dan fungsi satuan Zeni dan Topografi TNI AD di lapangan khususnya dalam mendukung penyelesaian tugas Operasi Militer Selain Perang (OMSP) seperti pemetaan lahan, salah satunya diperlukan metode pengukuran efisien dengan kapasitas alat sesuai kondisi lapangan penugasan. Lokasi penelitian terletak di Area Gedung M. Lily Rochly Akmil menggunakan referensi pengujian metode Waterpassing yang dilakukan pada ring 1-2-3 dengan titik pangkal BM dan ujung titik pangkal yang sama. Ketelitian perhitungan dilakukan dengan perataan kuadrat terkecil untuk mendapatkan standar deviasi alat Theodolite KT 440LR Series dan Waterpass Topcon B2. Hasil pengukuran jarak vertikal (beda tinggi) dari Waterpass memiliki ketelitian lebih baik daripada Theodolite, dimana kesalahan penutup tinggi Waterpass yakni 4 mm (ring 1), 9 mm (ring 2) dan 10 mm (ring 3). Sementara pada Theodolite yakni 7 mm (ring 1), 11 mm (ring 2) dan 14 mm (ring 3). Pada Waterpass standard deviasi adalah 0,02 mm, sedangkan standard deviasi pada Theodolite yakni 0,03 mm. Waktu pengukuran Theodolite terbukti lebih efisien dibandingkan dengan Waterpass, dimana waktu pengukurannya 1/3 kali lebih pendek dari waktu pengukuran alat Waterpass.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".