Assessment of Processes and Resources for Knowledge of Skills of a Chemistry Laboratory at the Senior High School of Ternate Island
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
This article discusses the influence of learning support processes and resources in the knowledge of ChemicalLaboratory skills of high school students in Ternate Island. The learning process of chemistry in high schoolespecially on laboratory, related to time/schedule allocation, practical purpose and achievement indicator in skill areabecome the focus of discussion on this aspect. While the supporting resources of learning, more emphasized onaspects of facilities and infrastructure such as the availability of educators, laboratory buildings, tools and chemicalsthat are based on the value of accreditation Senior High School in Ternate Island. in this study using 3 methods ofcollecting data such as survey techniques in schools, interview with teachers in schools and tests students' lab skills.The results showed that the knowledge of high school students' lab skills on Ternate Island is getting higher inschools with better accreditation. Skill Knowledge of High School Students in Ternate Island is still in the lowcategory on the glass organizing aspect at the laboratory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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