MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412880844 · doi:10.56071/deteksi.v10i2.1371

Pengaruh Elemen Rancang Kota pada Kualitas Ruang Publik di Kawasan Cagar Budaya Kota Tegal

2025· article· id· W4412880844 on OpenAlexaff
Suci Pertiwi, Shita Paramuditaningtyas

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknik Sipil · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitectural and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pertumbuhan kawasan perkotaan berbanding lurus dengan aktivitas penduduk didalamnya. Kota berperan sebagai pusat kegiatan Masyarakat meliputi tempat kegiatan keagamaan, administrasi, sosial, budaya dan rekreasi. Untuk mendukung aktivitas, perlu adanya sarana pendukung seperti perumahan beserta fasilitas perkotaan yang memiliki karakterisktik khas sebagai elemen pembentuk wajah kota. Selain itu, adanya hubungan antara budaya dan sejarah memberikan pengaruh pada karakteristik sifat dan fisik kota. Pengaruh elemen penyusun rancang kota juga berperan penting dalam kualitas ruang publik, menurut Hamid Shirvani (1985) terdapat delapan elemen antara lain bentuk dan massa bangunan, pola penggunaan lahan, parkir dan sirkulasi, open space, pedestrian ways, pendukung aktivitas, signage, dan preservasi yang terintegrasi satu sama lain. Sehingga dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif, bertujuan bagaimana Pengaruh Elemen Rancang Kota pada Kualitas Ruang Publik di Kawasan Cagar Budaya Kota Tegal. Hasil peneletian menunjukkan bahwa elemen rancang kota sesuai dengan kondisi lokasi studi yang terdapat pada teori Hamid Shirvani, namun perlu peningkatan kualitas serta penyusunan urban design guideline yang memuat ketentuan teknis elemen rancang kota sesuai dengan karakteristik Kawasan cagar budaya

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
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 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 Teknik SipilSame topicArchitectural and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207