Arahan Pengembangan Co-Working Space di Kawasan Kampus 1 (satu) Universitas Islam Bandung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The rapid advancement of technology has a major impact on changes in individual behavior patterns, many people tend to rely on the internet and look for a comfortable place to interact, including in the context of academic learning. Co-working space is a supporting facility for students in learning activities outside the classroom. Co-working space on campus not only functions as a meeting place for students, but also as a collaboration space between students, lecturers, and staff, where students can complete individual assignments or discuss in groups. Unisba currently has superior accreditation, so it should provide facilities that reflect superior accreditation, one of which is co-working space. This study aims to identify the determination of location points and development of co-working space in the Universitas Islam Bandung campus area. The method used in this study is quantitative with spatial triangulation analysis techniques. The results of the study indicate that the location of co-working space development in the campus area 1 (one) of the Islamic University of Bandung is spread across 6 buildings, namely Tamansari building 1 (one), FMIPA, LPPM, Dean's Office, Medicine, and Postgraduate, with the development of co-working space divided into 2 categories, namely the development of co-working space by utilizing empty spaces that currently do not have optimal functions, and optimization of co-working space that is currently available. The area of co-working space in the Campus area 1 (one) of the Islamic University of Bandung is less than the standard, which is 1,235.27 m2 out of 3 (three) so that it is necessary to increase the area of co-working space. Abstrak. Pesatnya kemajuan teknologi berdampak besar pada perubahan pola perilaku individu, banyak orang cenderung mengandalkan internet dan mencari tempat yang nyaman untuk berinteraksi, termasuk dalam konteks pembelajaran akademik. Co-working space menjadi fasilitas pendukung mahasiswa dalam kegiatan pembelajaran di luar kelas. Co-working space di kampus tidak hanya berfungsi sebagai tempat pertemuan mahasiswa, tetapi juga sebagai ruang kolaborasi antara mahasiswa, dosen, dan staf karyawan, di mana mahasiswa dapat menyelesaikan tugas individu maupun berdiskusi secara kelompok. Unisba saat ini memiliki akreditasi unggul, sehingga sudah seharusnya memberikan fasilitas yang mencerminkan akreditasi unggul, salah satunya adalah co-working space. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi penentuan titik lokasi dan pengembangan co-working space di Kawasan kampus Universitas Islam Bandung. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu kuantitatif dengan teknik analisis triangulasi spasial. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa lokasi pengembangan co-working space di kawasan kampus 1 (satu) Universitas Islam Bandung tersebar kedalam 6 gedung, yaitu gedung tamansari 1 (satu), FMIPA, LPPM, Dekanat, Kedokteran, dan Pascasarjana, dengan pengembangan co-working space terbagi kedalam 2 kategori, yaitu pengembangan co-working space dengan memanfaatkan ruang – ruang kosong yang saat ini tidak memiliki fungsi yang optimal, dan optimalisasi co-working space yang saat ini tersedia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".