PERENCANAAN PEMERINTAH DAERAH DALAM MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PERUMAHAN DI KAWASAN URBAN KOTA MALANG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality housing is an important factor in creating a healthy, safe, and sustainable housing environment in urban areas. Government planning plays a key role in improving the quality of housing in urban areas. In addition, the lack of effective planning can also result in uncoordinated housing development and cause complex socio-economic problems. This study aims to determine how government planning and supporting and inhibiting factors in housing development in the urban area of Malang City.This research aims to determine government planning in housing development as well as supporting and inhibiting factors in housing development in the urban area of Malang City. This research uses a qualitative approach method with interview techniques with the informants concerned. \n \nThis study uses a qualitative approach method with interview techniques to the relevant informants. The data sources in the study are primary data through observation, interviews an location documentation. Secondary data are obtained through the Peraturan Daerah Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Malang (RTRW) and RP3KP Document and Data on the number of formal housing in Malang City. The theory used by writer in the study is the Regional Development Planning Theory by Syafrizal. \n \nThe result of the study show that planning to improve the quality of housing should not damage the existing environment, this has been adjusted to the RTRW and the nature of development is sustainable. In accordance with the characteristic, the developments of housing area is directed in the implementation of urban infrastructure development to achieve the ideal conditions expected some of the challenges that must be faced include limited land, high land prices an demands to maintain existing environmental characteristics. Supporting factor for development are written government policies, the geographical location of the city, sosio – economic conditions. Inhibiting factors include the lack of synergy between stakeholders, weak legal basis including in the granting of property development permits in Malang City.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".