MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415987250 · doi:10.34001/ces.v5i02.1323

Analisis Indeks Kinerja Sistem Irigasi Daerah Irigasi Sambeng Kecamatan Kasiman Kabupaten Bojonegoro

2025· article· id· W4415987250 on OpenAlexaff
Yulia Indriani, Mushthofa Mushthofa, Bayu Wicaksono

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Civil Engineering Study · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater and Land Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlastic mulch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis indeks kinerja sistem irigasi di Daerah Irigasi (DI) Sambeng, Kecamatan Kasiman, Kabupaten Bojonegoro, dengan menggunakan pendekatan Penilaian Aset dan Kinerja Sistem Irigasi (PAKSI). Data dikumpulkan melalui observasi lapangan, wawancara dengan petugas dan petani, serta dokumentasi teknis jaringan irigasi. Komponen yang dievaluasi meliputi prasarana fisik, produktivitas tanam, sarana penunjang, organisasi personalia, dokumentasi, dan peran organisasi petani pengguna air (P3A). Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata indeks kinerja sistem irigasi sebesar 32,84%, yang termasuk dalam kategori “Kurang dan Perlu Perhatian”. Faktor utama penyebab rendahnya kinerja adalah kerusakan pada jaringan irigasi dan rendahnya partisipasi P3A/GP3A/IP3A dalam pengelolaan air. Berdasarkan hasil ini, direkomendasikan untuk segera melakukan perbaikan infrastruktur, meningkatkan sistem inventarisasi aset, memperkuat koordinasi antarinstansi, serta mengadakan pelatihan peningkatan kapasitas pengelola irigasi. Diharapkan langkah-langkah tersebut dapat memperbaiki sistem distribusi air dan mendukung ketahanan pangan secara 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 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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 Civil Engineering StudySame topicWater and Land ManagementFrench-language works237,207