MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550659821 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n4p148

Participatory Budgeting Role in Improving the Performance of Managerial Head of Department East Java

2016· article· en· W2550659821 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuni Sukandani, Siti Istikhoroh

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityJavaCitizen journalismParticipatory budgetingGovernment (linguistics)BusinessPopulationParticipatory managementSample (material)ManagementPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the role of participatory budgeting in improving the performance of managerial leadership of the Office of East Java province after being moderated by variable organizational commitment and the perception of innovation. The results of the study serve as a development of the science of public sector budgeting and guidelines for the government’s efforts in improving the credibility of local government agencies. The study population is in charge of the budget, namely Echelon III Office of East Java province as many as 130 people and saturate the sample set. The research instrument was a questionnaire and analyzed using Moderated Multiple Regression. Of the 105 questionnaires were successfully analyzed, it was concluded that participatory budgeting can improve managerial performance. The results of the analysis demonstrate that organizational commitment able to moderate the role, while the perception of innovation is not able to moderate the role of participatory budgeting in improving managerial performance.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceFrench-language works237,207