ANALISIS KOMPARASI STRATEGI BELAJAR INDIVIDU PESERTA DIDIK TINGKAT SLTP (Dilihat Dari Perspektif Gender)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini mengkaji tentang strategi belajar individu tingkat SLTP dengan tujuan dari penelitian untuk mengetahui perbedaan strategi belajar individu peserta didik antara SLTP Keagamaan dan Umum dilihat dari perspektif gender pria, strategi belajar individu peserta didik antara SLTP Keagamaan dan umum dilihat dari perspektif gender wanita. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kuantitatif komparasi dengan populasi seluruh peserta didik SLTP di wilayah kabupaten Jayapura. Sampel diambil dengan teknik purposive sampling berjumlah 230 orang yang berasal dari 2 sekolah yakni SLTP Keagamaan (MTs Negeri Jayapura) dan SLTP Umum (SMP Negeri 3 Nimboran). Data strategi belajar individu dikumpulkan dengan kuisioner yang kemudian dianalisis menggunakan uji beda untuk melihat perbedaan strategi belajar individu keduanya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan strategi belajar individu peserta didik antara SLTP Keagamaan dan Umum dilihat dari perspektif gender pria dan terdapat perbedaan strategi belajar individu peserta didik antara SLTP Keagamaan dan Umum dilihat dari perspektif gender wanita.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".