STRUKTUR KLAUSA BAHASA MAANYAN DALAM PANGUNRAUN TALIWAKAS PAADU (THE STRUCTURE OF THE MAANYAN CLAUSE IN PANGUNRAUN TALIWAKAS PAADU)
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
Struktur Klausa Bahasa Maanyan dalam Pangunraun Taliwakas Paadu. Penelitian ini bertujuanmemerikan secara lengkap struktur klausa bahasa Maanyan dalam Pangunraun Taliwakas Paadu(nasihat pernikahan), yaitu struktur kalimat dasar, struktur klausa relatif atau klausa perwatasan,dan struktur klausa pemerlengkapan. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metodedeskriptif. Deskripsi penelitian semata-mata hanya berdasarkan fakta yang nyata atau fenomenayang secara empiris hidup pada penuturnya, sehingga yang dihasilkan atau dicatat berupa pemerianbahasa.Berdasarkan hasil penelitian struktur bahasa Maanyan dalam Pangunraun Taliwakas Paadu(nasihat pernikahan) terdapat struktur klausa sebagai berikut: (1) Klausa relatif/perwatasan, terdiriatas pewatas frasa nomina objek, pewatas frasa nomina subjek sama, (2) Klausa pemerlengkapan,terdiri atas klausa pemerlengkap frasa verba berfungsi sebagai pelengkap, klausa pemerlengkap frasaverba berfungsi sebagai keterangan, dan klausa pemerlengkap frasa nomina subjek, (3)Struktur kalimatdasar, yang terdiri atas frasa nomina + frasa nomina, frasa nomina + frasa verba, dan frasa nomina +frasa numeralia.Kata-kata kunci: klausa relatif, klausa pemerlengkapan, struktur kalimat dasar
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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