MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128976432 · doi:10.21831/jpts.v2i2.36347

POLA PEMBELAJARAN TEACHING FACTORY PADA PROGRAM KEAHLIAN TEKNIK FURNITUR DI SMK NEGERI 1 PURWOREJO

2020· article· id· W3128976432 on OpenAlexaff
Agum Anugrah Ugama Hendra, ‪Amat Jaedun‬, Wisnu Rachmad Prihadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Pendidikan Teknik Sipil · 2020
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVocational and Entrepreneurial Education
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactory (object-oriented programming)HumanitiesComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching factory merupakan suatu langkah dalam menyiapkan SDM yang unggul.. Tujuan Penelitian ini untuk 1) mengetahui proses pembelajaran teaching factory; 2) mengetahui sumber daya teaching factory yang dimiliki; 3) mengetahui produk yang dihasilkan dari kegiatan teaching factory; 4) mengetahui kerja sama teaching factory. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan wawancara dan observasi. Teknik analisis data menggunakan metode analisis deskiptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa; 1) proses pembelajaran teaching factory telah terintegrasi cukup baik dengan Program Keahlian Teknik Furnitur; 2) sumber daya pendidik masih belum memenuhi jumlah yang seharusnya, serta kelengkapan sarana dan prasana di SMK Negeri 1 Purworejo masih kurang lengkap dari segi jumlah alat dan mesin, sehingga berpengaruh terhadap pelaksanaan praktik; 3) produk yang dihasilkan siswa kelas XI pada Program Keahlian Teknik Furnitur seperti almari, dipan, meja, kursi, rak cermin, pintu, dan jendela berdasarkan kebutuhan konsumen; 4) kerjasama antara pihak SMK Negeri 1 Purworejo dengan pihak industri furnitur belum terjalin, namun untuk kedepannya pihak sekolah terus berusaha untuk dapat berkerjasama dengan industri.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.021

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Pendidikan Teknik SipilSame topicVocational and Entrepreneurial EducationFrench-language works237,207