KINERJA STRUKTUR GEDUNG FASHION GALLERY TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN KAYU LAMINASI LABAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seiring dengan berkembangnya industri fashion di Indonesia, maka permintaan terhadap sarana penunjang perbelanjaan juga ikut meningkat. Gedung perbelanjaan umumnya dibangun menggunakan material komposit dari beton bertulang dan baja, sehingga diperlukan alternatif material struktur lain yang dapat diperbaharui dan ramah lingkungan seperti kayu laminasi Laban. Penelitian ini membahas mengenai kinerja struktur gedung fashion gallery di Kota Bandung terhadap penggunaan kayu laminasi Laban dengan bantuan perangkat lunak ETABS. Analisis struktur dilakukan dengan metode respon spekta berdasarkan SNI 1726:2019 dan metode riwayat waktu berdasarkan FEMA 356, sehingga dihasilkan kinerja struktur berupa gaya geser dasar dan simpangan antar lantai. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahawa penggunaan material kayu laminasi Laban sebagai alternatif material konstruksi struktur gedung fashion gallery di Kota Bandung menunjukkan kinerja struktur yang baik dengan tingkat kinerja LS (Life Safety). Hal ini terlihat dari arah dan jumlah ragam getar struktur, periode struktur, gaya geser dasar, dan simpangan antar lantai yang didapatkan menunjukkan nilai di bawah yang disyaratkan SNI 1726:2019.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".