Perencanaan Strategis Menuju Webometrics dan 4ICU Pada Website Perguruan Tinggi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instrumen yang paling sering digunakan oleh perguruan tinggi Indonesia maupun dunia sebagai bahan rujukan untuk mengevaluasi performa dan produktivitas berdasarkan website yang dimilikinya adalah melalui database penilai universitas dunia, diantaranya yaitu Webometrics dan 4ICU. Terdapat sejumlah perbedaan terkait indikator yang digunakan oleh kedua database pemeringkatan tersebut. Perbedaan itu tentu saja berpotensi menghasilkan penentuan ranking perguruan tinggi yang juga berbeda. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah menyusun rencana strategis kebijakan yang mampu menjadi pedoman bagi perguruan tinggi lokal dalam meningkatkan kualitasnya untuk menghadapi persaingan global. Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan Spearman Rank, maka diperoleh nilai koefisiensi korelasi sebesar 0.867 (sangat kuat). Berdasarkan korelasi atau hubungan antar indikator-indikator pemeringkat Webometrics dan 4ICU, backlinks dan jumlah publikasi ilmiah merupakan faktor yang mempengaruhi kedua pemeringkatan tersebut.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".