MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329207692 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v6n1p221

Efforts to Resolve Juvenile Delinquency in Serang (A Case study in SMKN 5, SMK PGRI I, and SMK PGRI 3, Serang)

2016· article· en· W2329207692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. HASANUDIN SN

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyPsychologyVocational educationGeneralizationMathematics educationSocial psychologyPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The purpose of the research is to discover and to analyze the cause of juvenile delinquency, school’s role in order to overcome the issue, and the efforts performed to resolve the issue in three vocational high schools in Serang. Qualitative method is used in order to comprehend the regular state of the objects through placing the researcher as the key instrument. The data collection is done through purposive and snowball technique, a technique done through triangulating, where the data analysis is inductive, and the findings are emphasized on significance rather than generalization. The findings show that the cause of juvenile delinquency in Serang involves internal and external factors. The internal factor revolves around personality, status and the students’ role in the society. Meanwhile, the external factors are family where the issues lies on the parent’s inability in disciplining their children, the lack of spiritual knowledge, especially Islamic value, and the poor control from the society which is often oblivious of student’s characteristic. The method to resolve juvenile delinquency in Serang concentrates on the curative and preventive precautions as following: reciting the Quran 15 minutes before the first subject of each day begins, conducting a routine group dhikr every Friday night, conducting a religious seminar every month which involves every party, conducting a routine brief lecture after Zuhr pray, whether it is delivered by teacher of the students, as well as da’wah training for students given by the teachers.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicEducational Methods and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207