Penamaan Motif Tenun Troso di Desa Troso Kecamatan Pecangaan Kabupaten Jepara (Kajian Etnolinguistik)
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
Troso Weaving is a wealth of ancestral heritage that must always be preserved so as to strengthen the nation's identity. In addition, Troso weaving can be a container for various activities that have a positive impact on society. Troso Weaving is not just an aesthetic handicraft product, but also has a function contained in the names of Troso woven motifs. This research aims to: 1) The description of the shape of the lingual unit in Troso woven motifs in Troso Village, Pecangaan District, Jepara Regency. 2) Description of the lexical and cultural significance of Troso woven motifs in Troso Village, Pecangaan District, Jepara Regency. 3) Description of the language function of the cultivation of Troso woven motifs in Troso Village, Pecangaan District, Jepara Regency. It can be concluded that 1) Based on the shape, the names of Troso woven motifs are in the form of words and phrases. 2) Based on the meaning, the names of Troso woven motifs have a lexical meaning and a cultural meaning. 3) Based on the language function, the names of Troso weaving motifs are as a form of respecting the names of characters, as a form of identity, describing flora, depicting fauna, as a form of religious symbolization, as a symbol of calculation, describing the attitude of mutual cooperation, showing social status, showing technology, describe traditional arts, describe ecologically, and as a source of inspiration.Keywords: form, lexical meaning, cultural meaning, language function, names of woven motifs
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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