KONSEP PEMIKIRAN AHMAD TAFSIR DALAM ILMU PENDIDIKAN ISLAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ahmad Tafsir adalah seorang pakar dalam bidang pendidikan, khususnya pendidikan Islami dan sudah banyak menulis karya-karya tentang pendidikan Islami dan filsafat. Ahmad Tafsir cenderung dalam melakukan kajian tentang pendidikan Islami dan filsafat. Penelitian ini dikhususkan pembahasannya kepada konsep pendidikan Islami berdasarkan pemikiran Ahmad Tafsir yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui konsep pendidikan Islami yang sesuai untuk diterapkan dalam lembaga-lembaga pendidikan Islam khususnya di Indonesia. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah kepustakaan (library research) dan metode analisis datanya adalah deskriptif. Dari hasil telaah berbagai bukunya diperoleh penjelasan bahwa Ahmad Tafsir menawarkan suatu konsep pendidikan Islami yang berangkat dari keimanan. Menurut pendapatnya pengertian pendidikan Islami, tujuan pendidikan Islami, kurikulum pendidikan Islami, dan evaluasi Pendidikan Islami harus berlandaskan keimanan kepada Allah SWT. Karena keimanan akan mengantarkan para peserta didik untuk mencapai tujuannya, yaitu menjadi Muslim yang sempurna (Insan Kamil).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.020 |
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".