PERBANDINGAN NILAI BUDAYA KARYAWAN HOTEL DI SEMINYAK DAN UBUD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research on this tourism human resource is titled Comparison of Employee Culture value hotels in Seminyak and Ubud. This research is a quantitative study conducted in two tourist destinations in Bali namely Seminyak and Ubud area. Data collection techniques are carried out by distribution of polls, and literature studies. The research period will be held in August 2019 – October 2019. As for the research subject specified is a number of each of the 60 employees of the hotel in both areas. Seminyak and Ubud area were chosen as the location of the research with several considerations: 1) Seminyak and Ubud are the main tourist destinations in Bali, 2) The growth of the number of hotels in both regions is equally fast, 3) the culture owned by hotel employees In Seminyak and Ubud need to be analyzed for product development (service). The theory used in the study was the cultural value theory of Hofstede. Angket (questionnaire) used to refer to VSM (Value Survey Mudule) developed by Hofstede. Since the province of Bali relies on the tourism sector for its region's major income, the research is important because human resources are an important component of the service. This research resulted in several findings on the similarities and differences in the value of hotel employees ' culture in Seminyak and Ubud areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".