MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100287564 · doi:10.31543/jii.v4i1.161

Strategi Pemasaran PT. Sari Melati Kencana Outlet ITC BSD menggunakan Analisa SWOT

2020· article· id· W3100287564 on OpenAlexaff
Annuridya Octasylva, Nunie Nurida, Mutiara Mahardika

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal IPTEK · 2020
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBusiness administrationSWOT analysisBusinessPhilosophyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seiring dengan persaingan yang semakin ketat, maka setiap perusahaan harus mampu mempertahankan atau bahkan memperluas pangsa pasarnya. Oleh sebab itu diperlukan strategi pemasaran yang tepat agar tujuan perusahaan tersebut dapat tercapai. Hal ini lah yang menjadi tujuan dari penelitian ini dengan objek penelitian PT Sari Melati Kencana Outlet ITC BSD. Penelitian ini menggunakan Analisa SWOT dimana penggunaan analisis SWOT yang efektif dapat menentukan strategi yang tepat dalam rangka menjaga kelangsungan hidup perusahaan. Pada penelitian ini diketahui hasil SPACE Matrix berada pada kuadran 1 yang berarti perusahaan perlu melakukan strategi yang agresif dengan total skor faktor internal 1,32 dan skor faktor eksternal 0,8 yang merujuk pada strategi disversifikasi konsentrik. Dengan menggunakan strategi SO (Strength Opportunities), Pizza Hut ITC BSD berusaha memaksimalkan kekuatan yang dimiliki untuk memanfaatkan peluang yang ada sehingga diharapkan mampu meraih pelanggan sebanyak-banyaknya dan mencapai sales yang tinggi. Kata Kunci : SWOT analisis, Space Matrix, Strategi Pemasaran

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.007

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal IPTEKSame topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207