Effectiveness of Training Model Capacity Building for Entrepreneurship Women Based Empowerment Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine the effectiveness of a training model for capacity building of women entrepreneurship community-based. Research type approach Research and Development Model, which refers to the model of development research that developed by Romiszowki (1996) combined with a model of development Sugiono (2011) it was leveled; into five stages, namely (1) the analysis of the needs and potential, (2) design, (3) development, (4) implementation, and (5) evaluation. The research subject was the facilitator of the training module woven pandanus as many as 30 people. Data analysis was conducted descriptive quantitative research. The results showed that the training model CBWB-EEER based on responses facilitators are of very high category, and by trial participants, indicating in terms of (1) the ability to identify potential average is at kategory high, (2) the ability of entrepreneurship is in the category enough and high, (3) the ability to manage finances on average at the high category, and (4) the ability of woven pandanus creative skills are very high. From the results of data analysis showed that the training model of capacity building for entrepreneurship women based on empowerment community meet the criteria of feasible and effective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".