Composite Index Development for Reforming Urban Livability Through the Subjective Quality of Life Indicators Approach in Salatiga City, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to quantify the composite index derived from residents' subjective perceptions of satisfaction and to identify the most influential indicators shaping the quality of life and livability in Salatiga City.Employing multivariate analysis, specifically, factor analysis, the research constructs the composite index and determines key contributing factors across four dimensions: physical well-being, mental well-being, economic well-being, and social wellbeing.These dimensions collectively inform the overall Quality of Life Index in Salatiga.The findings reveal that the Economic Well-being dimension is the most significant contributor to urban livability, explaining 55.64% of the variance, while the Mental Well-being dimension contributes the least, at 46.37%.Overall, the perceived quality of life related to livability is classified as moderate, with a community satisfaction index of 50.82%.These results highlight the urgent need for a more responsive and integrative strategy to strengthen mental well-being, thereby fostering a more balanced and holistic enhancement of overall quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".