Paket Informasi Arsitektur Rumah Gadang Khas Minangkabau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The writing of this paper aims to describe and provide knowledge about the architecture of the typical rumah gadang minangkabau house to the community, especially the current millennial generation. The method used in this paper is a descriptive method with a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach is to collect data directly by conducting observations, interviews and literature. Based on the discussion, it can be concluded that there are 5 stages in the process of packaging information packages for the Minangkabau Typical Rumah Gadang Architecture. The stages are, (1) identifying user needs. Identification is done to find out how much information needs are needed by users; (2) carry out the process of determining the topic of information to be discussed; (3) carry out information gathering conducted by observation, interviews and literature searches; (4) conduct data analysis and selection of information that has been obtained in accordance with the topic; (5) carry out the process of packaging information that presents covers, introductory words, table of contents, chapter sections and conclusions.Keywords: information packaging, rumah gadang architecture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".