Tingkat Pengetahuan PUS Tidak Berhubungan dengan Keikutsertaan KB di Desa Argomulyo, Sedayu, Bantul Yogyakarta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Planning (FP) participation is the most important thing in the family planning program in Indonesia. Based on the baseline study, family planning participations in 6 in Argomulyo village covered 533 couples (59.22 %) of 900 total couple of reproductive age. Knowledge is one of the factors that causes reproductive age couples to join the family planning program. Knowledge is used as the basis of actions to solve problems and this was the result of knowing after the people recognice an object. Knowledge about family planning is expected to cause the participation of reproductive age couples in the family planning program. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between the knowledge level of family planning participation in reproductive age couples in Argomulyo village, Sedayu, Bantul, Yogyakarta 2014. Study design was observational analytic with cross sectional aproach. Technique sampling used was total sampling of reproductive age couples in Argomulyo village, Sedayu, Bantul, Yogyakarta resulted on 907 respondents. Data was colected by interview using the questionnaire. The analysis used was chi-square. The result of chi-square test showed a p-value 0.318>(0.05) and coefficients contingency of 0.05 so knowledge level had no relationship with FP participation. Knowledge level was 71.00% good, while the highest participation of family planning in the majority of with fair level enough was 68.8%, in addition, the highest proportion of couples who did not participate in FP program was 41.8%. In Conclusion, there was no significant relationship between the knowledge level about family planning and the participation of the family planning in reproductive age couples in Argomulyo village, Sedayu, Bantul, Yogyakarta year 2014.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".