MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994721836 · doi:10.35914/tabaro.v2i1.113

PERAN PENYULUH TERHADAP PENGUATAN KELOMPOK TANI DAN REGENERASI PETANI DI KABUPATEN BOGOR JAWA BARAT

2018· article· id· W2994721836 on OpenAlexaff
Wardani Wardani, Oeng Anwarudin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal TABARO Agriculture Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultural scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian bertujuan menganalisis peran penyuluh terhadap penguatan, kemandirian kelompok tani serta regenerasi petani dan menganalisis pengaruh penguatan, kemandirian kelompok tani terhadap regenerasi petani. Penelitian dilakukan di wilayah kerja Balai Penyuluhan Pertanian, Perikanan dan Kehutanan Caringin, Kabupaten Bogor pada Juni sampai November 2017. Populasi penelitian adalah petani muda yang menjadi anggota kelompok tani dan gabungan kelompok tani sebanyak 60 orang yang diambil menggunakan teknik acak sederhana. Data diambil menggunakan kuesioner dengan skala instrumen rating scale. Variabel penelitian terdiri atas peran penyuluh pertanian (X1), penguatan kelompok tani (X2), kemandirian kelompok tani (X3) dan regenerasi petani (Y). Analisis data menggunakan statistik deskriptif, korelasi dan regresi. Hasil penelitian disimpulkan bahwa peran penyuluh pertanian berpengaruh signifikan terhadap penguatan kelompok tani. Peran penyuluh dan penguatan kelompok tani berpengaruh nyata terhadap kemandirian kelompok tani. Peran penyuluh, penguatan kelompok dan kemandirian kelompok tani berpengaruh tidak nyata terhadap regenerasi petani.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal TABARO Agriculture ScienceSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207