MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083632751 · doi:10.54297/sjeb.vol1.iss2.137

ANALISIS PENGELOLAAN KEUANGAN DANA DESA

2020· article· en· W3083632751 on OpenAlex
Asri Djauhar, La Ode Abd. Manan, Daswin Awit

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSultra Journal of Economic and Business · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial managementInvestment managementBusinessFinanceGovernment (linguistics)Data collectionAdministration (probate law)AccountingPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the Village Fund Management in Togomangura Village. To achieve these objectives, qualitative research methods are used to decipher data descriptively. Data collection techniques are done by observation, interviews, and documents and archives using qualitative descriptive analysis techniques. The results showed: 1). For the stages of village financial planning in Togomangura Village, the Togomangura village government has managed the village fund finances in accordance with Permendagri Number 113 of 2014 concerning Village Fund Financial Management. 2). For the Village Fund budgeting phase in Togomangura Village, it has been carried out in accordance with existing principles, namely by budgeting village funds in accordance with the RKP of the Village that was determined at the planning stage and in accordance with Permendagri Number 113 of 2014 concerning Village Financial Management. 3). The implementation of Village Fund Financial Management in Togomangura Village has been very good and in accordance with applicable regulations namely Permendagri No. 113 of 2014 concerning the implementation of village finances and the PDTT Permendes Number 19 of 2017 concerning Priorities for the Use of Village Funds in 2018. 4). The administration of the Village Fund Financial Management Program in Togomangura Village is already good, because it is in accordance with applicable regulations namely Permendagri No. 113 of 2014 concerning the implementation of village finance. 5). Village Fund Financial Reporting in Togomangura Village is not in accordance with Permendagri No. 113 of 2014 concerning village financial management. This is evidenced by the late TPK Field and Village Treasurers in submitting reports. 6). Monitoring of Village Funds by the BPD, it can be concluded that the BPD in carrying out its functions runs well but is less than optimal. This is because there are several factors that create obstacles, namely Human Resources (HR) so that the awareness of BPD members is less than optimal in carrying out their duties and functions. 7). The use of Village Funds in Togomangura Village in 2018 is not in accordance with the priority of use according to the PDTT Regulation No. 19 of 2017 concerning the priority of using Village Funds in 2018. 8). Inhibiting factors in the management of the Village Fund in Togomangura Village, namely: Human Resources, Late Reporting, Internet Networks, Community Understanding, Poor Coordination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.235 · 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