Crafting the Effective Learning Model for High Education: An Investigation from the business Incubator in Three Universities 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
The study aims to examine the current implementation of entrepreneurship learning including business incubator and to identify factors influencing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship and incubator output including developing collaborative learning model in each particular faculties/university in Jakarta and Tangerang. Method of the study uses qualitative analysis which is focusing on Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and in -depth interview approaches to eight universities and fifteen academicians with strong background in managing as well as entrepreneurship teaching experiences. The result shows that strong collaboration between the study programs and business incubator must be strongly established to provide entrepreneurship learning experiences in higher education. There are significant aspects as influencing factors to create collaborative model between entrepreneurship program and business incubator; university’s vision and mission, entrepreneurial background lecturer, strong culture and reward system. This study is claimed as few studies focusing on developing a collaborative model specifically to the universities which have business incubator in Indonesia. Studies on the effect on collaborative learning model on entrepreneurship toward succesful entrepreneurship education would be considerably fill in the gaps in the body of knowledge on the subject.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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