Evaluasi Kinerja (Integrated Library Information System) IBRA sebagai Sarana Temu Kembali Informasi di Sekolah Dasar Muhammadiyah Sapen
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
Di era teknologi informasi saat ini, sistem informasi perpustakaan menjadi hal yang sangat penting. Seperti halnya sistem informasi penelusuran informasi (Integrated Library Information System) IBRA yang dapat membantu pemustaka mencari informasi yang dibutuhkan. Penelitian berjudul Evaluasi Kinerja (Integrated Library Information System) IBRA sebagai Sarana Temu Kembali Informasi di SD Muhammadiyah Sapen ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan menggunakan 6 kreteria evaluasi temu kembali informasi menurut Salton dan McGill yang dikutip oleh Chownhulury, yaitu covererage of the collection (Cakupan Koleksi), precesion, Respon Time’s, (rentan waktu), Effort atau upaya pengguna, covererage of the collection ( Cakupan Koleksi), Penyajian data. Hasil penelitian Tingkat keefktifan kinerja IBRA dan proses mengunakan pendekatan subjek dan judul hasil menunujukan bahwa nilai precision memiliki nilai efektif. Sistem tidak menampilkan waktu perolehan data, Sedangkan dalam segi upaya pengguna dalam penggunaan IBRA masih kurang, tidak ditemukannya menu help. Selain itu Tampilan sistem temu kembali perpustakaan SD Muhammadiyah Sapen cukup menarik, sehingga penguna akan merasa senang dan nyaman ketika memggunakan OPAC. Cakupan koleksi yang ditampilkan IBRA cukup lengkap lengkap. Terdapat pdf, tampilan sampul, data bibliografi. Namun belum menampilkan abstrak.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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