MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772065400 · doi:10.33086/ehdj.v2i2.1384

UPAYA PEMBINAAN TARI ANAK DI SANGGAR TARI PUTRA BIMA RESPATI SURABAYA

2017· article· id· W2772065400 on OpenAlexaff
Pance Mariati

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation and Human Development Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural and Artistic Studies
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upaya membentengi budaya daerah agar tidak mudah terpengaruh oleh budaya asing adalah dengan cara menguatkan serta melestarikan kesenian daerah. Upaya yang dilakukan untuk melestarikan kesenian daerah kota Surabaya khususnya untuk anak-anak adalah pembelajaran tari yang dilakukan di sanggar tari. Tujuan dilaksanakannya kegiatan tersebut adalah memberikan ruang bagi anak-anak untuk berekspresi dan berkarya seni, agar sejak dini anak dapat mengenal dan mencintai kesenian. Berdasarkan pemaparan di atas, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah, 1) untuk mengetahui latar belakang pembelajaran tari anak di Sanggar Tari Putra Bima Respati Surabaya; 2) untuk mendeskripsikan upaya pembinaan tari anak yang dilakukan di Sanggar Putra Bima Respati. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan kualitatif yang mendeskripsikan upaya pembinaan tari anak di Sanggar Putra Bima Respati Surabaya. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa proses pembelajaran tari yang dilakukan di Sanggar Tari Putra Bima Respati sanggat disiplin dan tegas sehingga menghasilkan penari-penari yang mempunyai teknik gerak dan tubuh yang bagus dalam menari. Oleh karena itu, prestasi yang diperoleh sanggar Putra Bimarespati sampai pada tingkat Provinsi, Nasional, sampai Internasional.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.006

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation and Human Development JournalSame topicCultural and Artistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207