MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165552541 · doi:10.37905/nj.v13i1.31981

Kajian Jenis-jenis Kayu dan Perhitungan Volume Bahan Pembuatan Kapal Nelayan Tradisional di Kecamatan Bangkurung Kabupaten Banggai Laut

2025· article· W7165552541 on OpenAlexaff
Umi Kalsum Bidullah, Azis Salam, Zhulmaydin Chairil Fachrussyah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe NIKé Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)Class (philosophy)Range (aeronautics)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the types of wood used in making traditional boats and to determine the calculation of the volume of materials needed for making traditional fishing boats in Kalupapi Village and Bone-Bone Village, Bangkurung District, Banggai Laut Regency. The research method used a survey method applied in two ways, namely interviews using questionnaires and direct sample measurements. The results of this study indicate that traditional fishing boats in Kalupapi Village and Bone-Bone Village are made of wood, which not only provides strength and durability, but also supports environmental sustainability by utilizing natural resources available around the village. The types of wood used are meranti wood and ironwood. To calculate the estimated wood requirements in boat construction, which include the volume of boards and the length and diameter of the mahera, the board volume coefficient (Cp), the mahera length coefficient (Clm), and the mahera diameter coefficient (Cd) can be used. In this study, the results obtained are Cp 0.1604, Clm 9.300, and Cd 0.498.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueThe NIKé JournalSame topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207