MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152207982 · doi:10.33086/ehdj.v2i1.385

MANAJEMEN PEMBELAJARAN TEMATIK INTEGRATIF SESUAI KURIKULUM 2013 PADA KELAS 4 SD KHADIJAH SURABAYA

2017· article· en· W3152207982 on OpenAlexaff
Nafiah Nafiah

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation and Human Development Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusLesson planCurriculumDocumentationMathematics educationCompetence (human resources)PsychologyThematic analysisThematic mapPedagogyAuthentic assessmentClass (philosophy)Plan (archaeology)Qualitative researchComputer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligenceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to describe the implementation of management of integrative thematic learning based on curriculum 2013 at grade 4 khadijah primary school Surabaya. The focus of this study are 1. The lesson plan for integrative thematic class based on curriculum 2013 at grade 4 khadijah primary school . the research method of this study is descriptive kualitatif, the data collection technique are interview, observation and documentation. The result of this study are 1) the lesson plan of integrative thematic based on curriculum 2013 at grade 4 khadijah primary school Surabaya conducted by several steps are : a) set thema, b) doing analisys SKL, KI, and basic competence, c) arrage syllabus, d) arrage the lesson plan, 2) doing integrative thematic learning based on curriculum 2013 at grade 4 Khadijah primary school used scientific approch by observing, questioning, reasoning, trying, processing, displaying, verivicaying, and communicating, 3) the assessment of integrative thematic learning based on curriculum 2013 at grade 4 khadijah primary school used authentic assessment that include written assessment, project assessment and portfolio assessment.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation and Human Development JournalSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207