Perilaku Pencarian Informasi Mahasiswa Jurusan Teknologi Pendidikan Tahun 2016 di Perpustakaan Universitas Negeri Padang
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
AbstractThis paper discusses the 2016 information seeking behavior of Education Technology Department students at the Padang State University Library. The purpose of writing this paper is to describe: (1) information seeking behavior of 2016 Education Technology students at the Padang State University Library; (2) obstacles in conducting information searches at the Padang State University Library; (3) efforts that can be made to overcome obstacles in conducting information searches at the Padang State University Library. Data collection is done through questionnaires or questionnaires. Based on the results of the study concluded as follows: (1) information seeking behavior of Education Technology Department students in 2016 from the front information seeking behavior of students gave a positive response, (2) obstacles encountered in conducting information searches among them: (a) no information they need ; (b) the incomplete collection needed; (c) there are difficulties in finding collections because they are on different shelves than the OPAC system; (d) inadequate internet network; (e) the service of librarians who are unfavorable and unwise, (3) efforts that can be made to overcome obstacles in seeking information are: (a) providing and completing collections according to the needs of students and lecturers; (b) compile a collection rack that is compatible with the OPAC search engine, so that users can easily find the information they need; (c) improving internet network facilities so that they are not slow, because most students often use the internet to find information they need; (d) as a librarian, it is better to serve the user well and wisely so that they can help the users who find it difficult to find the information needed.Keywords: behavior, information, students, librarians.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it