Effective Laboratory Work in Biochemistry Subject: Students’ and Lecturers’ Perspective in Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biochemistry subject had problem in learning and teaching, especially in laboratory work. We explored laboratory learning implementation in Biochemistry subject. Participants of this research were 195 students who took biochemistry subject and 4 lecturers of biochemistry in three universities in Indonesia. We obtained data using questionnaires and free response data. Questionnaires students' analysis showed there were two statements that very positive perception, five statements that obtained positive perception and ten statements with negative perception. Biochemistry lecturers questionnaire analysis showed seven statements that had been implemented and nine statements had not been implemented. Free response data indicated that effective learning in the laboratory was affected by several aspects which were pre-lab stage that could increase the students’ motivation, lab-work stage with complete tools and materials as well as better ability of the assistants, and post-lab stage that could give feedback to the experiments’ report and chances for the students to present their investigation results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it