Perencanaan Pembangunan Fasilitas Publik Berbasis Masyarakat: Studi Kasus Pembangunan Bendungan Seratak di Kabupaten Kotabaru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis proses perencanaan pembangunan Bendungan Seratak dengan menekankan peran masyarakat dalam setiap tahapannya. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan studi kasus dengan pengumpulan data melalui wawancara mendalam, diskusi kelompok terfokus (FGD), serta analisis dokumen, termasuk Detail Engineering Design (DED) dan studi kelayakan yang disusun oleh Dinas PUPR dan Bappeda. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Sungai Seratak memiliki debit air yang cukup besar (600–700 l/detik) dengan kualitas air yang sebagian besar memenuhi standar baku, sehingga layak dijadikan sumber utama pasokan air. Selain itu, keterlibatan masyarakat dalam identifikasi kebutuhan air bersih dan irigasi meningkatkan efektivitas desain proyek dan menumbuhkan rasa memiliki terhadap fasilitas publik. Dukungan politik dari DPRD dan pemerintah pusat turut memperkuat potensi keberhasilan pembangunan ini. Kesimpulan penelitian ini menegaskan bahwa perencanaan berbasis masyarakat memberikan kontribusi signifikan terhadap keberlanjutan dan penerimaan sosial proyek. Rekomendasi utama
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".