MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480810281 · doi:10.35792/zot.36.2.2016.12655

EVALUASI KINERJA PENYULUH BP3K DALAM BIDANG PETERNAKAN DI KECAMATAN PINELENG KABUPATEN MINAHASA

2016· article· en· W2480810281 on OpenAlexaff
Astrid F Polohindang, B F.J Sondakh, J Lainawa, J M Tumewu

Bibliographic record

VenueZOOTEC · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationResidenceField surveyGovernment (linguistics)PsychologyAgricultural scienceMedical educationEngineeringSociologyMedicineCivil engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FIELD FARM EDUCATOR IN PINELENG DISTRICT PINELENG OF MINAHASA REGENCY. The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of field farm educator and to know the success of the field farm educator at Pineleng district of Minahasa regency. Respondents were applied by survey method at 1 supervisor, 4 field farm educators and 30 selected farmers as targets of counseling. Data were collected by interview, observation and documentation. Sources of data were including primary data in the form of extension internal program, age, education, experience, and the number of dependent family. External extension factors were involving infrastruc-ture, government policies, the intensity of illumination, and the distance of field farm educator residence. The second primary data were taken regarding the indicators of appraisal extension educator office. Secondary data were obtained from agencies associated with this study, such as the BP3K office of the Pineleng district and Pineleng district office. Data analysis was using qualitative deskriprif. The analysis showed that the internal and external factors affecting one to each other of the performance of the field farm extension of educators. Extension performance appraisal done by superiors to field farm educator assessment itself indicated good category. This good category indicated that from nine assessment indicators, seven of them were done by field farm educators. Field farm educators were not optimal in doing extension because the compiled program did not reach the target. In conclusion internal and external factors influencing the extension performance of field farm educators, in the judgment of superiors are in accordance with the duties and functions of each field farm educator. On the basis of this study, the result of the extension was not optimal because more farmers did not participate and achieve in extension and the planned program objectives of the field farm educators.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZOOTECSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207