MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117155288 · doi:10.31172/bgb.v6i2.156

Karaktersitik Pola Arus Laut di Perairan Selat Sunda Periode Tahun 2013 – 2023

2025· article· W7117155288 on OpenAlexaff
Rofikoh Latif Yuhana, Danar Guruh Pratomo, Khomsin Khomsin

Bibliographic record

VenueBuletin GAW Bariri · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and Coastal Ecosystems
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian ini mengkaji karakteristik pola arus permukaan laut di Perairan Selat Sunda menggunakan data arus model numerik dari Marine Copernicus selama periode 2013 – 2023. Analisis dilakukan untuk mengidentifikasi arah dan kecepatan arus pada periode musiman, yaitu musim barat (Desember – Januari – Februari), musim peralihan I (Maret – April – Mei), musim timur (Juni – Juli – Agustus), dan musim peralihan II (September – Oktober – November). Data arus model Marine Copernicus diverifikasi terhadap data pengamatan High Frequency (HF) Radar menggunakan metode statistik koefisien korelasi Pearson (r) dan Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), menghasilkan nilai r sebesar 0.77 dan RMSE 0.26 m/s, menunjukkan tingkat akurasi yang baik. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa pada musim barat, arus dominan menuju ke timur laut dengan kecepatan rata-rata 0.5 – 1.0 m/s dan maksimum 1.5 – 2.0 m/s. Pada musim peralihan I, arus menuju ke timur laut dengan kecepatan rata – rata 0.75 – 1.25 m/s dan maksimum 1.5 – 2.0 m/s. Pada musim timur, arus dominan menuju ke barat daya dengan kecepatan rata – rata 1.25 – 1.75 m/s dan maksimum 1.5 – 2.0 m/s. Pada musim peralihan II, arus menunjukkan arah tidak beraturan menuju barat dan timur, dengan kecepatan rata – rata 1.0–1.5 m/s dan maksimum 1.5 – 2.0 m/s. Pola arus ini dipengaruhi oleh angin monsoon, topografi dasar laut, dan interaksi pesisir, yang berdampak pada navigasi, perikanan, dan ekosistem laut.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.013

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueBuletin GAW BaririSame topicMarine and Coastal EcosystemsFrench-language works237,207