MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FAKTOR PENGHAMBAT KERAJINAN ANYAMAN TANGAN DI PERBATASAN SAJINGAN BESAR DALAM MENGHADAPI MASYARAKAT EKONOMI ASEAN

2017· article· id· W2768031072 on OpenAlexaff
Andi Rosdianti Razak, Elyta

Bibliographic record

VenueSosiohumaniora · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSMEs Development and Digital Marketing
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salah satu kerajinan anyaman tangan Kalimantan Barat berasal dari perbatasan Sajingan Besar Kabupaten Sambas, kerajinan anyaman tangan tersebut merupakan warisan secara turun temurun yang membutuhkan pembinaan melalui inovasi dari regenerasi baru. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan analisis kualitatif, peneliti melakukan wawancara dari berbagai informan dan mengumpulkan data sekunder dari instansi terkait. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat dua faktor penghambat pengembangan kerajinan anyaman tangan di wilayah perbatasan Sajingan Besar Kabupaten Sambas dalam menghadapi Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN yaitu: 1) pola pikir masyarakat kurang inovatif dikarenakan kurangnya lembaga pendidikan dan pembinaan anyaman kerajinan untuk masyarakat sehingga kerajinan anyaman tangan sulit berkembang. Rendahnya kualitas sumber daya manusia membuat pelaksanaan Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN tidak terlalu dirasakan oleh masyarakat perbatasan Sajingan Besar Kabupaten Sambas; 2) pemasaran produktifitas kerajinan anyaman tangan terkendala karena belum diresmikannya Pos Lintas Batas Negara Aruk di Kabupaten Sambas sehingga produk kerajinan anyaman tangan di wilayah perbatasan Sajingan Besar Kabupaten Sambas sulit bersaing dalam menghadapi Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSosiohumanioraSame topicSMEs Development and Digital MarketingFrench-language works237,207