MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462205715 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n7p59

Preserving of Traditional Culture Expression in Indonesia

2016· article· en· W2462205715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayu Citra Santyaningtyas, Mahmood Zuhdi Mohd Noor

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolkloreInjusticeCultural heritageExpression (computer science)Cultural identityDanceIdentity (music)AestheticsSociologyPolitical scienceLawAnthropologyArtSocial scienceLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The great nation is a nation that is able to uphold the identity of the nation. Indonesia as the country with works of art and culture is no exception in terms of the traditional cultural heritage indeed has tremendous potential. And this potential still seems to be hidden and not used optimally.</p><p>One of the potential that can be developed for economic development are traditional knowledge (traditional knowledge), including folklore, art, dance, carvings, weavings and other traditional cultural expressions is the result rather than the fruit of human thought both movable and captured by our senses that have either abstract or tangible form.</p><p>The emergence of issues of injustice felt by developing countries occur because of traditional cultural expressions they do not get the protection and respect for traditional communities as the owners of traditional cultural expressions. Utilization of traditional cultural expressions may be defined as the use of traditional cultural expressions assets commercially and used without any sharing of benefits from the developed countries, therefore we need a protection.</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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207