MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412077796 · doi:10.22487/peweka.v4i1.46

Analisis Tingkat Risiko Banjir pada Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS) Bialo Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

2025· article· id· W4412077796 on OpenAlexaff
Farhan Aldiansyah, Despry Nur Annisa Ahmad, Andi Idham Asman

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal PeWeKa Tadulako · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimedia Learning Systems
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS) secara sederhana dapat diartikan sebagai salah satu wadah yang memiliki fungsi mengalirkan air hujan ke danau atau laut. Perubahan pemanfaatan lahan di hulu DAS Bialo yang menyebabkan pendangakalan menjadi salah satu penyebab terjadinya banjir di area hilir DAS Bialo. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisis tingkat ancaman (hazard), kerentanan (vurnerability), kapasitas (capacity) dan risiko (risk) banjir pada Daerah Aliran Sungai Bialo. Metode pengumpulan data dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode wawancara, dokumentasi, observasi, dan studi literatur. Metode analisis yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode deskriptif kuantitatif, analisis spasial, dan deskriptif kualitatif. Metode deskriptif kuantitatif digunakan untuk melakukan analisis ancaman (hazard), kerentanan (vurnerability), kapasitas (capacity) dan risiko (risk). Analisis spasial digunakan dalam proses pemodelan hasil perhitungan ancaman, kerentanan, kapasitas, dan risiko. Metode deskriptif kualitatif digunakan untuk melakukan interpretasi hasil analisis spasial. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tingkat risiko bencana banjir pada DAS Bialo terdiri dari 3 klasifikasi yaitu rendah, sedang dan tinggi. Luas Rendah 3342,39 Ha, Sedang 6748,27 ha dan Tinggi 807,86 Ha.

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)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal PeWeKa TadulakoSame topicMultimedia Learning SystemsFrench-language works237,207