PENGARUH PENGGUNAAN MODEL CONCEPT ATTAINMENT TERHADAP PEMAHAMAN KONSEP MATEMATIKA
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
Abstract. The purpose of this research is to know the understanding of mathematical concepts of students with the use of conceptual attainment model is better than the understanding of students' mathematical concepts with conventional learning. This research is quasi experimental research. The research design used was randomized subjects posttest only control group design. By selecting a Class VIII-2 sample as an experimental class and class VIII-1 as a control class of analytical techniques using the t-test as a hypothesis test, the prerequisite test is a normality test and homogeneity test. Based on the hypothesis test, t-test, obtained the price tarithmetic = 3.073 and price ttable = -1.997 at the real level of 0.05. Because tarithmetic > ttable, so Ha accepted and H0 rejected. So it can be concluded that the ability to understand the concept of mathematics students using conceptual learning model attainment better than the ability to understand the concept of mathematics students using conventional learning model.Keywords: Concept Attainment, Understanding of Concept
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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