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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".