ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCCESS (AHP) UNTUK MEMBANGUN MESIN PENCARI DATA LULUSAN PERGURUAN TINGGI BERDASARKAN KEBUTUHAN PENGGUNA LULUSAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telah menjadi tugas perguruan tinggi untuk membuat lulusan terserap dunia kerja. Keterserapan lulusan di dunia kerja akan tinggi apabila perguruan tinggi dapat melakukan link & match antara kebutuhan perusahaan dengan kompetensi yang dimiliki lulusan. Link & match yang baik dapat terjadi jika didukung oleh ketersediaan data yang akurat dan pengolah data yang baik. Makalah ini melaporkan hasil penelitian pembuatan mesin pencari data lulusan yang dapat dimanfaatkan oleh pengguna lulusan untuk mencari lulusan suatu perguruan tinggi. Dengan metode Analytical Hierarchy Proccess (AHP) kriteria calon pegawai yang ditetapkan pengguna lulusan akan diurutkan berdasarkan skala prioritas kemudian dicocokkan dengan kompetensi lulusan. Apabila ditemukan kompetensi lulusan yang sesuai atau yang hampir sesuai maka mesin pencari akan menampilkan lulusan yang dimaksud beserta biodatanya untuk selanjutnya dapat dihubungi pihak pengguna lulusan. Dengan 14 kriteria dan 57 sub kriteria yang tersedia pengguna lulusan dapat menemukan sendiri lulusan yang dicari sesuai dengan kriteria yang dikehendakinya. Kata kunci: mesin pencari, data lulusan, AHP.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".