ANALISIS KESIAPAN PEMEKARAN DAERAH PROVINSI \nKOTAWARINGIN UNTUK MEWUJUDKAN DAERAH OTONOM BARU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the Readiness Analysis of the Regional Expansion of the Kotawaringin Province to Realize the New Autonomous Region. In the plan for the expansion of the Kotawaringin Province, it departs from the problems; 1) history records that on the island of Kalimantan there has been no regional division that has occurred at the provincial level, 2) the area of Central Kalimantan Province is almost a quarter of the island of Java, 3) the lack of infrastructure availability makes development slow and uneven, 4) the distance between Districts with provincial capitals that are too far away, 5) social jealousy occurs between the northern and southern parts of Central Kalimantan Province due to uneven development, 6) Regency candidates who want to expand into Kotawaringin Province are the regions with the largest contributors to the Central Kalimantan Provincial Budget. , 7) the desire to reunite the heritage area of the Kotawaringin Sultanate in Central Kalimantan. \nThis study uses a qualitative method, in which the nature of this research is descriptive. From the research method, it is able to describe the readiness for the expansion of the Kotawaringin Province to realize the New Autonomous Region (DOB). With data collection techniques based on interviews, observations, and documentation. \nThe results of this study indicate that the plan for the formation of the Kotawaringin province is very possible to carry out regional expansion because there is no provincial expansion that has occurred in Central Kalimantan. Then the readiness of the Kotawaringin Province has met the administrative requirements and the physical readiness of the region. However, in terms of technical readiness, Kotawaringin Province is not yet mature enough because the rate of economic growth in the last 5 years is still fluctuating.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".