Konsep Manajemen Insani Sebagai Upaya Peningkatan Kinerja Guru Di Madrasah
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
Teachers have their own problems when it comes to deal with their performances quality they have done so far. One of the problems which is clear that some teachers do not really develop themsleves and do reflections to all their performance processes. Teachers’ performance improvement actually can be improved by two directions in human management concept, that is leader’s and colleague’s supports and motivating themselves to do many reflections. The human management concept that is studied in this article is focused on teachers’ performance improvement by maximize human potential as the first and main components to improve learning quality and education itself.
 Para guru memiliki problematika tersendiri ketika bersinggungan dengan kualitas kinerja yang dilakukannya. Salah satu problematika yang tampak adalah kurangnya sebagian guru dalam melakukan pengembangan diri dan refleksi terhadap keseluruhan proses kinerja. Peningkatan kinerja guru sebenarnya bisa dilakukan melalui dua arah pada konsep manajemen insani, yaitu dukungan dari pimpinan dan kolega dan memotivasi diri sendiri dengan melakukan banyak refleksi diri. Konsep manajemen insani yang dikaji pada artikel ini berfokus pada peningkatan kinerja guru dengan memaksimalkan potensi manusia sebagai komponen pertama dan utama dalam meningkatkan kualitas pembelajaran maupun pendidikan itu sendiri.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it