Peningkatan Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar Melalui Metode Buzz Group
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 research supported by the lack of motivation and learning outcomes islamic education students educated at. vocational schoolThe purpose of this research to know the learning methods he continued to buzz can increase motivation and learning outcomes in learning. islamic educationThis study research the act of class ( class room action research conducted ). cycle as much asThe subject is the muslim students xi route tourism state 1 integrated luwu ponrang 24. as the southData collection techniques used is, observation the survey and by using an instrument shaped double. about choiceData analyzed using analysis. descriptiveThe analysis of data observation students at cycle i obtained the average percentage of the students only 50.044 % ( low ) increased to percent of high 82.22 in cycle II. The spread of chief motivation students on cycle i obtained the average the percentage motivation students only of 59,75 % ( being ) increased to 71.5 % ( high in cycle ii) .Next based on hasi analysis student learning test study results obtained the average students on pre cycle of 62.167 ( less of the total value 1492 with the ketuntasan klasikal is only 29.17 % , you are an increase of cycle i with the average score of 67.667 ( less ) while the up 37.5
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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