MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110252166 · doi:10.48094/raudhah.v5i1.67

KONSEP PENDIDIKAN ISLAM “HUMAN TOUCH” MENURUT MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD BADRI

2020· article· id· W3110252166 on OpenAlex
Fitri Susanty

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

VenueRaudhah Proud To Be Professionals Jurnal Tarbiyah Islamiyah · 2020
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Character Development
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Banyak sekali kita temukan buku-buku, berbagai artikel bahkan sampai pada seminar-seminar yang membicarakan tentang pendidikan anak terutama konsep pendidikan Islam, namun hal tersebut masih berupa tataran teoritis saja. Maka, seorang dosen dalam bidamg Psikologi dan parenting anak menuangkan suatu konsep pendidikan Islam yang disebut “Human Touch” dimana konsep ini dibuat berdasarkan pengalaman dirinya ataupun orang lain dalam membesarkan buah hati tercinta. Konsep ini juga pastinya merujuk kepada Al-Qur’an dan Hadits nabi yang menggambarkan bagaimana seharusnya kita sebagai pendidik dan orang tua bersikap. Untuk melahirkan generasi Islam yang sholeh dan mushlih dalam hal medidik mereka harus punya banyak bekal, pengalaman dan ilmu. Kata-kata yang membentuk frase “Human Touch” inilah yang memberikan gambaran pengalaman dalam membentuk generasi yang dibutuhkan oleh umat Islam. Selain mengajarkan seni dalam mendidik, konsep ini mengingatkan para orang tua tentang tujuan mendidik anak. Kemudian memaparkan sarana apa saja yang bisa digunakan untuk mencapai tujuan itu. 

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.293 · 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