Inter-Stakeholders Communication in the Implementation of Village Fund Programs: An Experience in Gorontalo Province, 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
This study analyzed the patterns and models of communication that occur among stakeholders in the implementation of village fund programs; communication barriers that occur; and the implementation of the village fund programs itself with the communication patterns and obstacles that occurs. Data collection was done through non-participatory observation, in-depth interviews, focused group discussion, and literature review. The results showed that stakeholders in the implementation of village fund programs carry out formal and non-formal communication patterns. The communication model found was both linear and convergent models. The communication barriers could occur in communication from top to bottom, the bottom up, horizontally, and diagonally. There are various types of communication barriers that occur in implementing village funds, namely: personal, cultural, physical, and environmental barriers. The implementation of village funds requires the village community to act as the subject of development, thus requiring the participation of all village communities, starting from the stages of planning, implementation, monitoring, to preservation.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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